EUTHANASIA – THE MACEDONIAN VIS-À-VIS THE CANADIAN LEGAL CONCEPT IN LIGHT OF THE POST-COVID ERA: ARE WE REDEFINING THE VALUE OF LIFE?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
If the right to live is a fundamental human right, should the state grant the individual a right to die?If yes, to what extent should the government let people have free will over the termination of their own lives?Society nowadays, is far from reaching a consensus regarding these moral, ethical and legal dilemmas.This also explains the variety of legal solutions regarding euthanasia (generally defined as deliberately ending one's life, usually to relieve suffering) around the globe, ranging from ultra-liberal, to absolutely strict which do not differentiate an act of euthanasia from murder.Bearing in mind that, on one hand, the most widely-practiced religions in the world strongly condemn the voluntary termination of one's own life, and on the other, the modern fundamental human rights jurisprudence is oriented towards widening the scope of "right to private life", states are still very careful in regulating highly sensitive matters like the "right to die".However, few countries, such as Canada, are pioneering in liberalization of their euthanasia legislation in the past couple of years.This work concentrates on the comparative analysis on two different legal approaches towards this question -the Macedonian restrictive legal solution, vis-à-vis the wide positioning of Canada's euthanasia legal framework which is currently receiving a lot of public notice, while simultaneously shedding a light on the challenges which were imposed on countries by the COVID-19 outbreak, in attempt to answer the question: are the latest liberalization trends trivializing human life?
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.013 | 0.022 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".