Ethical Implications of End-Of-Life Decisions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper examines the recent policy update by the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario (CPSO), which allows physicians to override patient wishes for cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) without consent. It critically analyzes the ethical implications of this shift, emphasizing the juxtaposition between the legal protections for patient’s Last Wills and the relatively diminished safeguarding of their end-of-life care preferences. The paper highlights the potential for bias in physician decision-making, the risk of reverting to a more paternalistic healthcare model, and the challenge of balancing patient autonomy with medical authority. The study underscores the need for a nuanced approach to healthcare policy that respects patient autonomy while addressing the complexities of end-of-life decisions.
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 | 0.067 | 0.138 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.056 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.017 | 0.018 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".