Human misconnection <i>?</i> A response to Beuthin and Bruce on medical assistance in dying providers’ lived experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Beuthin and Bruce's study 'MAiD as human connection: Stories and metaphors of physician providers existential lived experience' in this journal describes the affective experiences of Canadian Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) providers. A critical response to this work shows it is based on flawed premises and interpretations of its data, which centers on praising its participants in lethal injection for their very positive emotions. Their study also seems to unproblematically construct people dying by MAiD as "the other," a term that usually describes members of groups subject to individual and systemic oppression. Contextualized, their paper can be read to show how some MAiD providers may affectively and financially benefit from providing death to, and at the expense of, their suffering patients and grieving and possibly traumatized family members and witnesses. Beuthin and Bruce's study sheds new light on the provider side of MAiD and assists the case for vetting and setting suitability criteria for MAID clinicians.
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 | 0.008 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.011 | 0.009 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.044 | 0.047 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
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".