Dying, dependency and death: Exploring palliative care access gaps for children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Death has become a medicalized event. As such, end-of-life care has become entrenched in an over-reliance on individual patient autonomy to guide ethical decision making. Subsequently, the process of dying and the event of death are not primarily valued as life events - that is, as life-affirming phases of living. Rather, dying and death are viewed through the lens of medical options of when and how to die versus why dying and death are meaningful. This presents a problem for addressing the pediatric palliative care access gap and the Global Common Good. Specifically, in the context of important life events, one of which is death, we need space to be dependent on our inter-personal relationships to make crucial life decisions that affect our well-being. Recognizing dependency and inter-personalism is particularly important for pediatric populations. Children are uniquely placed to draw on their families and caregivers to make affirming life decisions in end-of-life care. This is particularly challenging to do in the Canadian context when Specialized Pediatric Palliative Care is not equitably available but options such as assisted death may soon be. Importantly, the meaning of death and dying is largely unexplored for this population. To advance ethical care at the end-of-life, more emphasis needs to be placed on the meaning that end of life events hold for Canadian children. In this paper I will outline the relevance of dependency and inter-personalism to attend to dying and death as meaningful phases of living for Canadian children and in relation to the pediatric palliative care access gap, the Global Common Good and Global Health Bioethics.
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 | 0.006 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".