Knowledge and Personal Determinants of Euthanasia in Caregivers of Patients with Terminal Illness, Sutiaba - León Iii Quarter 2022
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Traditionally, death has not been a clinical problem since the doctor's role has been to preserve life and promote health.Euthanasia has been addressed by two philosophical currents, made up of men of science and religion.For its defenders, the human dignity of the patient consists of freely choosing the moment of his death.For its detractors, is to oppose the law by considering it a human arbitrariness in the face of an exclusively divine or legal matter.In Nicaragua there has never been an aspiration to create a movement in favor of assisted suicide or euthanasia for social, cultural and religious reasons.The general objective was to describe knowledge and personal determinants of euthanasia in caregivers of patients with terminal illness.Therefore, this qualitative phenomenological research was carried out at the Félix Pedro Picado Health Center, Sutiaba, León -Nicaragua.The sample was made up of 8 caregivers of patients with terminal illness.An instrument on knowledge and personal determinants of Euthanasia was applied, perceiving that, the work of caring for these types of patients causes both physical and mental exhaustion due to the simple fact of not finding a cure for the disease.The ethics of health professionals and the social consideration regarding human life are important factors to take into account because there is not inclination between the good and bad of this procedure, with a human thought in terms of expressing that euthanasia is a practice to die with dignity.From a phenomenological point of view, the knowledge and personal determinants that caregivers of terminally ill patients have, it's controversial; the feeling of losing a loved one prevents and could be considered a selfish act from prolonging the patient's life, taking into account that this also would prolong the suffering, pain and anguish.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".