MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416298002 · doi:10.1111/polp.70090

Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide in the <scp>UK</scp> : An Idea Whose Time Has Come?

2025· article· en· W4416298002 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ian Bache

Bibliographic record

VenuePolitics &amp Policy · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPublic policySpace (punctuation)Poison controlMoralitySuicide preventionPolicy making

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Assisted dying/assisted suicide (AD/AS) has emerged as an important policy issue across the world, with an increasing number of jurisdictions legalizing the practice in recent years. In this context, the article by Bache published earlier this year (2025) in Politics &amp; Policy applied agenda‐setting theory to consider why AD/AS has not been legalized in the United Kingdom (UK) despite consistently high levels of public support. In addition, it considered the prospects for policy change and identified the factors that made policy change likely in the near future. Shortly after this article was published, a Parliamentary vote indicated that AD/AS would likely become available in the UK within a few years. While the original article outlined a range of factors that explained this probable policy change, it offered very limited space to consider developments in other jurisdictions and to reflect on what might be learned about the nature, pace, and timing of developments in the UK from these cases. Therefore, this additional piece is intended to extend and update the previous article in these areas. The discussion looks at the three cases that have featured most prominently in UK debates, and which have legalized through different routes—Oregon (referendum), Canada (courts), and the Netherlands (legislature)—thus drawing attention to systemic differences that provide insights for the UK case. I situate the discussion within the literature on morality policy, taking the comparativist “Two Worlds” approach as its starting point. Related Articles Bache, I. 2025. “The Multiple Streams Framework and Non‐Politicized Issues: The Case of Assisted Dying/Assisted Suicide.” Politics and Policy 53, no. 1: e70016. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.70016 . Silagadze, N. 2021. “Abortion Referendums: Is There a Recipe for Success?” Politics and Policy 49, no. 2: 352–389. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12398 . Angervil, G. 2021. “A Comprehensive Application of Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework: An Analysis of the Obama Administration's No Child Left Behind Waiver Policy.” Politics and Policy 49, no. 5: 980–1020. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12432 .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.290
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.189
GPT teacher head0.453
Teacher spread0.264 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePolitics &amp PolicySame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207