MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W629480670

Die reg op lewe, die waarde van menslike lewe en die eutanasie-vraagstuk

2011· article· af· W629480670 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Rassie Malherbe

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of South African Law / Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse Reg · 2011
Typearticle
Languageaf
FieldMedicine
TopicPatient Dignity and Privacy
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDignityValue (mathematics)ConstitutionArgument (complex analysis)Right to dieValue of lifeSubject (documents)Perspective (graphical)Promotion (chess)Assisted suicideAbsolute (philosophy)SociologyPsychologyLawEpistemologyPolitical sciencePhilosophyMedicinePoliticsComputer science
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Euthanasia is a highly emotional and controversial subject - especially since almost everyone can identify with the ones who are most likely to ask for such assistance (namely the terminally ill and the elderly). But is it morally acceptable to give such persons the to be killed or to receive assistance in taking their own lives? This article attempts to address this question and to formulate a principled perspective, which could be used as a moral framework to address the euthanasia issue. It is submitted that the principled perspective to the value of life is best described by the sanctity-of life school of thought, which states that each human life is intrinsically valuable and should be protected irrespective of the individual's age or any disease or physical or mental disability that the individual might suffer from. However, this does not mean that the value of human life is an absolute value - if there are other values and considerations that are more important in a particular situation then those values and considerations should prevail. It is often submitted that individuals' to self determination (embraced by s 10, 12 and 15 of our constitution) encompasses the so-called right to choose. This argument, however, loses sight of the fact that individuals do not have a to choose whatever they want - a to self determination is only worthy of protection if that choice is morally acceptable and can contribute to the promotion of respect for human dignity and the intrinsic value of human life. This article also attempts to distinguish between the different instances of euthanasia and assisted suicide and indicates the South African legal position with regard to each instance - active euthanasia and assisted suicide are essentially acts of murder. The article further investigates the legal position on euthanasia in Canada, England, Oregon and the Netherlands. Finally the article examines whether active euthanasia, passive euthanasia and assisted suicide are reasonable and justifiable in terms of section 36 of the constitution if the principled perspective to the value of human life is accepted - and it is found that only passive euthanasia can be justified in terms of the constitution. In conclusion it is submitted that the current legal position should be confirmed and that more time and resources should be spent on the improvement and promotion of palliative care and emotional support for the terminally ill.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.813
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0010.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.280
Teacher spread0.217 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of South African Law / Tydskrif vir die Suid-Afrikaanse RegSame topicPatient Dignity and PrivacyFrench-language works237,207