PROBLEMATIC ISSUES OF EXERCISE OF THE RIGHT TO EUTHANASIA THROUGH THE PRISM OF INHERITANCE LAW.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The article highlights the problematic issues of the right to euthanasia in the context of inheritance. The legislation of foreign countries (in particular, the USA, Germany, Israel, the Netherlands, Canada) on the possibility of drawing up a «living will» and/ or a request for euthanasia is analyzed. Attention is drawn to the opposing positions of scientists, who argue both «for» and «against» the possibility of expressing the wish of a person to make a «living will» and a request for euthanasia.Practical aspects that are obstacles to the realization of a person's right to euthanasia are studied. The need for the existence of an appropriate mechanism (procedure) that would defend the interests of such a person and minimize the influence of potential heirs and medical staff on the implementation of his conscious and voluntary expression of wish regarding euthanasia is pointed out. Attention is drawn to the fact that such a mechanism requires a lack of interest on the part of both witnesses (involved in drawing up a will or a request for euthanasia) and medical staff (taking into account their possible personal interest or influence primarily from relatives) and the need for detailed and consistent regulation of the euthanasia decision-making procedure.
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 | 0.024 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".