MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4321368548 · doi:10.1136/spcare-2023-scpsc.12

S3-3 When is medically assisted dying appropriate?

2023· article· en· W4321368548 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Madeline Li

Bibliographic record

VenueSymposium · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careLegalizationAssisted suicidePsychosocialAutonomyMedicineDistressIntervention (counseling)NursingPsychologyPsychiatryPolitical scienceClinical psychologyLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Medically assisted dying is increasingly garnering global support, now permitted in thirteen countries and being considered in several more. This growing legalization has occurred largely in Western and European countries, a reflection of its impetus in societal factors such as an increasing emphasis on individual autonomy, secularism, consumerism and patient empowerment in these more individualistic or less collectivist cultures. Although the drive for assisted dying has not primarily come from medicine, physicians have been invoked as the gatekeepers. This has created personal distress for some clinicians and professional challenges for some disciplines such as palliative care. Yet, the majority of those who pursue assisted dying do receive palliative care services and there has been little global evidence of assisted dying being disproportionately provided to unwilling or vulnerable populations. The fact is that despite the availability of adequate palliative care, a small minority of patients will still want medically assisted dying. Assisted deaths have also been associated with better family bereavement outcomes than deaths due to other causes. Medically assisted dying accounts for less than 5% of deaths as compared to the suicide rate of only 0.03% in palliative care, suggesting that the desire for assisted death is distinct from suicide. Contrary to popular belief, unbearable pain or physical suffering is not the main reason patients request medically assisted dying at the end of life. Psychological factors are the most common reasons, including the loss of autonomy and the desire for control. It is often unclear if a psychosocial intervention would be clinically indicated or effective in altering a capable patient’s wishes. The paramount clinical responsibility in ensuring that MAiD is delivered safely and ethically is differentiating the desire for death as an indicator of pathology from a rational choice undertaken by a capable patient. This presentation will use case examples to illustrate that this is indeed possible to do, and in some cases, a medically assisted death may be the only and most patient-centered way to relieve end of life suffering. In this new clinical practice of medically assisted dying, medicine must now rise to the obligation to balance the concurrent duties of beneficence through respecting the autonomy of capable patients and nonmaleficence by protecting vulnerable patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: Commentary
Teacher disagreement score0.097
Threshold uncertainty score0.324

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0050.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0970.025

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.388
Teacher spread0.279 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSymposiumSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207