Ethical Perspectives to Guide Decision-Making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ethical perspectives are presented on the acceptability of suicidal behaviours and the obligations and limitations of intervening to prevent suicides intervention. Ethical concerns may influence whether potentially life-saving interventions will be undertaken, and under which circumstances, as well as what is permissible in research studies. We identify three broadly defined ethical positions, recurrent in discourses concerning suicide, which we call moralist, libertarian and relativist. The moralist position contends that suicide is unacceptable and that there is a pervasive moral obligation to protect life that takes precedence in decision-making. Libertarian perspectives emphasise the individual’s freedom of choice to determine whether to live or die, with an absence of an obligation to interfere with the personal decision to die. Relativism refers to the belief that what is morally acceptable varies according to the context or framework of assessment. Stoic views on suicide are contrasted with Jewish, Christian and Moslem perspectives. We discuss if suicide can be rational, if there can be an obligation to suicide, a right to be protected from committing suicide, and Good Samaritan laws.
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 | 0.030 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.028 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.013 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.006 |
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".