Medical Assistance in Dying and Palliative Care: Shared Trajectories
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) and palliative care often have an antagonistic relationship in jurisdictions where both are legal, but the early ethical and legal history of palliative care closely mirrors that of MAID in important ways. Palliative practices that are commonplace today were considered homicide or "medically assisted death" in most jurisdictions until quite recently. Moreover, while many patients request MAID today for reasons that are criticized as "ableist," the same rationale is accepted without comment or judgment when used to justify withdrawal of life support or a discontinuation of life-prolonging therapies. Concerns about factors that undermine autonomous decisions for MAID would apply equally to routine palliative care practices. By the same token, palliative care exists because no field in medicine is able to fix every problem it encounters. It is ironic, therefore, that some palliative care providers oppose MAID with the hubristic argument that we can relieve all forms of suffering. Palliative care providers may choose not to participate in MAID, but palliative care and MAID do not have to be mutually exclusive and are often complementary and synergistic for patients and families.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".