THE RIGHT TO LIFE FROM THE POINT OF VIEW OF PERSONAL AUTONOMY IN DECISION-MAKING ON EUTHANASIA (REVIEW OF THE ECHR PRACTICE AND THE LEGISLATION OF SELECTED COUNTRIES)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim: To analyze law enforcement practice on the basis of the national legislation of foreign states to single out features of legal regulation of the right to euthanasia realization and to outline the Ukrainian prospects of euthanasia legalization. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Materials and methods: The empirical basis of the research is the legislation of some European countries (Belgium, Spain, Italy, Portugal, and the Netherlands) and Canada; decisions of the European Court of Human Rights on the right to voluntary death and the obligations of states; the results of a survey of 750 respondents conducted by the authors. The methodological basis of the study were philosophical views on life, death, and the right to certainty, formal-logical method (analysis, synthesis, induction, deduction, etc.), comparative, analytical, statistical, sociological methods of cognition, as well as a synergetic approach. CONCLUSION: Conclusions: The issue of legal regulation of euthanasia is multifactorial, socially conditioned, and requires a positive action of the state both in terms of regulation and/or prohibition, and the proper provision of citizens with health care. Legislative support for the human right to a "dignified death" is dictated, to some extent, by society's demand, which must be finally resulted in the draft law. As for Ukraine, the adoption of such a law is obviously premature. Although according to a survey of citizens on euthanasia and the feasibility of introducing such a law in Ukraine, 57% are positive about the experience of other countries, and 41% were in favor of adopting a law in Ukraine, it is not possible to assess their opinion due to ignorance of legislation where euthanasia is allowed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".