Bibliographic record
Abstract
Over the summer of 2015, The Economist ran an editorial article about the state of assisted suicide in "Western" countries.The subtitle made clear the editorial viewpoint: "Doctors should be able to help the suffering and terminally ill die when they choose" ("The Right to Die").While this publication may not necessarily represent the viewpoint of all, it does make a case that a majority of polling citizens within Western European countries, the United States, and Canada favor the right to assisted suicide in certain circumstances, namely terminal illness.In fact, The Economist avers that the assisted suicide laws that are in effect in places such as Oregon (United States) do not go far enough.Assisted suicide laws should also provide for those in mental anguish, because, "mental pain is as real as physical pain, even though it is harder for onlookers to gauge.[ . . .] Doctor-assisted death on grounds of mental suffering should therefore be allowed" ("The Right to Die").With laws along these lines, long-term physical and mental suffering, such as that experienced by Ramn Sampedro, would create a path toward assisted suicide.Yet the path toward a more accepting view of providing assisted suicide as a basic human right has been slow and is certainly not imminent everywhere.The question I have is thus: If everyone is for assisted suicide, why is it not yet a universal right?My essay for Ethics of Life: Contemporary Iberian Debates deals with the film Mar adentro, the issue of assisted suicide, and the fundamental concept of human freedom.My aim is to place the film and the contemporary debate on assisted suicide within the wider context of human liberty and democratic convention.The overwhelming consensus, as seen in The Economist, is to consider assisted suicide or the right to die a democratic right based on a notion of freedom defined as full autonomy.Death no longer precludes that right, as Enlightenment thinkers once held.As the filmic discourse suggests, we are in the midst of a major shift in how we define human life and values.Pluralism, itself a fruit of Enlightenment freedom of thought, and empiricism have both played a
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".