Children with cancer in India: An ethical framework for practice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Childhood cancer has been ranked the most common cause of death due to non-communicable disease among 5- to 14-year-old children in India. Ethical concerns have been identified in the care of children with cancer in India, yet there is a paucity of ethical standards for clinical practice to help address these concerns. For example, emerging research has demonstrated that many children are distressed when they are impeded from participating in discussions and decisions regarding their cancer care. Therefore, we sought to create an ethical framework to guide practice with this population. METHODS: We developed this ethical framework by conducting (a) a normative analysis of relevant documents that articulate norms for healthcare providers working with children in India and (b) stakeholder consultations with childhood cancer survivors, parents, and clinicians. RESULTS: The ethical framework is structured according to twelve key ethical principles and corresponding challenges or implications for clinical practice. We discuss how this ethical framework can help address three leading ethical concerns that we have identified within the care of children with cancer in India: (a) communication problems; (b) inadequate care of symptoms or promotion of comfort; and (c) injustices or inequities related to limited financial means or poverty. CONCLUSION: Ethical concerns that have been related to the care of children with cancer in India can be prevented or at least mitigated through the integration of this ethical framework in everyday clinical practice.
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 | 0.015 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.018 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".