Bibliographic record
Abstract
The project to provide voluntary assisted dying (VAD) has grown significantly and at an accelerating rate over the past two decades in over 30 countries on four continents. Yet, concomitant with this rise is an increasing opposition to it based on legal, medical, and ethical grounds advanced by a wide range of detractors, giving pause to projects already underway, and bringing its enlargement to a halt. Simultaneously, persons seeking relief from suffering continue to be denied VAD access or are forced to wait for it by decreed compulsory living. Those assisting beyond the legislated parameters of a VAD regime are facing criminal prosecution. The contraposition to VAD has raised the risk of desperate persons seeking relief by committing violent suicide, endangering family, friends, and first responders. In light of this concerning development, I identify how the prevailing legislated approach at the source of these issues is both paradigmatic and problematic. Amendments to existing prohibitions for assisted dying or homicide become the foundation of an assisted dying regime that codifies its essential features, including client typology, life quality for service access or its denial, who is authorized to provide VAD, and when and how it can be administered. While this approach continues to be replicated extensively and has provided some relief to unbearable living, I show how an alternative, time-tested, evidence-based approach for VAD offers an optional pathway that could avoid many of the most challenging aspects of the prevalent model.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".