Euthanasia in opinions of students of medicine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Euthanasia assumes the deliberate deprivation of life of another human being for the good of that person. At present, euthanasia is legally practiced in Holland, Belgium, Luxemburg, Columbia and Canada. In Poland, euthanasia is strictly prohibited. The aim of this work is to present the opinions of medical students about euthanasia. An anonymous questionnaire was conducted among first-year students of medicine at the Medical University of Lublin, Poland. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The anonymous questionnaire consisted of 35 questions that concerned three components of euthanasia attitude: knowledge, evaluation, and acceptance of its use. The study included 281 students of medicine (77.6% of all first-year students). RESULTS: Although euthanasia in Poland is legally prohibited, almost one-fifth of students of medicine expressed a positive attitude towards euthanasia, and over a quarter of students opted for its legalization. Only two independent variables, i.e., family size (number of children) and religious involvement of the respondents, differentiated both the overall assessment of euthanasia and the level of acceptance for its legalization. Non-religious people more often (43.3%) than religiously engaged people (6.4%) expressed positive opinions about euthanasia. CONCLUSIONS: The attitudes of students towards euthanasia are often inconsistent. There is a need to evaluate medical study programmes in the context of creating the right attitudes of future doctors towards euthanasia.
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 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".