Examining The Right To Die In The Context Of Euthanasia: A Critical Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The right to life is a fundamental entitlement, safeguarded by both Article 21 of the Indian Constitution and Article 3 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Every facet of the right to life is subject to judicial scrutiny and contingent upon specific circumstances. Within this realm lies the contentious right to die, often associated with the concept of euthanasia or "mercy killing." Advocates argue that individuals, under certain circumstances, should have the option to choose death rather than being compelled to endure continued existence. Divergent viewpoints on this issue either oppose the legalization of euthanasia or dispute the recognition of the right to die based on particular grounds. Within the boundaries of a dignified life, individuals have the right to confront challenging conditions without succumbing to despair. Such principles are ingrained in Indian culture, with Hinduism emphasizing the eternal nature of the soul and the transformative nature of death for the body. Conversely, the Muslim faith asserts that life should only conclude at Allah's will, supporting a stance aligned with natural death. In contemporary society, there is a growing argument that individuals should be granted the option to choose death under specific circumstances. Consequently, it is imperative for the government and the Parliament to establish pertinent laws and regulations to prevent potential abuses in such situations
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 | 0.013 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.044 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.012 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".