Aging Meaningfully: The Ethics of Existential Suffering for Older Adults in Healthcare
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Existential suffering (ES) can be particularly prevalent among older adults, and with Canada’s growing aging population, addressing ES in senior care will be a pressing concern in coming years. ES is a side effect of aging that involves losing meaning, self-identity, autonomy, and hope. This paper focuses on one cause of ES among older adults, namely, the loss of meaning (LoM). Meaning becomes increasingly necessary for well-being at later stages in life, due to the positive effects it confers on mood, health, and longevity. I argue that when ES arises in healthcare settings, healthcare providers (HCPs) have a duty to 1) understand ES and LoM and 2) respond to older adults who experience ES because of LoM. HCPs may not be able to alleviate ES or LoM, but they are obliged to make a reasonable attempt. To justify this, I draw upon three fundamental values in healthcare: trust , compassion , and beneficence . By reflecting on each of these values, it becomes clear that ES and LoM deserve attention from HCPs. In addition to making this argument, I recognize that ES is not only limited to old age nor solely incumbent on HCPs to address. Broader social factors and public health initiatives can help people at all life stages to preserve meaning. In raising awareness in HCPs about ES due to LoM, this paper also provides a non-exhaustive list of three psychotherapies that deserve exploration and/or implementation for patients suffering from ES due to LoM, namely: Palliative Care Psychotherapy, Meaning-Centred Group Psychotherapy, and Dignity Therapy.
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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 it