Legal and Ethical Dilemmas in the “Right to Die” for Terminal Cancer Patients in India: Comparative Insights from Global Jurisdictions
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The “right to die” for terminal cancer patients is a subject of profound legal, ethical, and cultural debate, especially in India, where societal norms, evolving jurisprudence, and medical ethics intersect. This study examines the legal recognition of passive euthanasia and advance medical directives in India, tracing landmark judgments such as Common Cause v. Union of India (2018) and subsequent regulatory developments. It critically evaluates the ethical dilemmas faced by healthcare professionals in balancing patient autonomy, familial consent, and professional responsibilities, highlighting the challenges posed by limited palliative care infrastructure and cultural sensitivities. Through a comparative analysis of global jurisdictions, including the Netherlands, Switzerland, and Canada, the research identifies international best practices, legal safeguards, and ethical frameworks that can inform Indian policies. The study aims to propose context-sensitive recommendations for strengthening end-of-life care, ensuring patient rights, and harmonizing ethical standards with legal provisions in India.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it