MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6893312049 · doi:10.5281/zenodo.14651882

Медико-соціальні аспекти евтаназії паліативних хворих в Україні, Швейцарії, Канаді, США та Ізраїлі

2024· article· uk· W6893312049 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research) · 2024
Typearticle
Languageuk
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGlobal Healthcare and Medical Tourism
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPalliative careMedical ethicsMedical careMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Цитуйте українською у Ванкувер стилі: Нестеренко ВГ. Медико-соціальні аспекти евтаназії паліативних хворих в Україні, Швейцарії, Канаді, США та Ізраїлі. Медицина сьогодні і завтра. 2024;93(3):65-83. https://doi.org/10.35339/msz.2024.93.3.nes Архівовано: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14651882 Резюме Медична Асистована Смерть (МАС) застосовується легально у таких країнах світу, як Нідерланди, Бельгія, Люксембург, Швейцарія, Колумбія, Канада, Австралія, Іспанія, Німеччина, США. Закони про легальну евтаназію розглядають Португалії та Нова Зеландія. МАС виконується введенням смертельної речовини безнадійно хворій людині лікарем або самим хворим. Евтаназія є однією з послуг, яких потребують паліативні хворі в останні місяці та дні їх життя. Доступність МАС підвищує рейтинг країни в Індексі Якості Смерті та зменшує потребу в евтаназійному туризмі. Україна потребує легалізації МАС, як і покращення системи паліативної та хоспісної допомоги у цілому. Дослідження проведено з використанням методів системного аналізу, порівняльного методу та бібліосемантичного методу з пошуком літературних джерел та нормативно-правових актів у Google, Google Scholar та на PubMed, з акцентом на Україні, Швейцарії, США, Канаді та Ізраїлі. При порівняльному аналізі зроблено висновок, що оптимальною для України є канадська модель МАС, з урахуванням досвіду її побудови, сприйняття суспільством та проблем, пов’язаних із застосуванням законодавчих норм МАС. Ключові слова: паліативна та хоспісна допомога, реформа системи охорони здоров’я, медично асистована смерть, індекс якості смерті, право на життя, право на смерть. Cite in English in Vancouver style: Nesterenko VG. Medical and social aspects of euthanasia of palliative patients in Ukraine, Switzerland, Canada, the USA and Israel. Medicine Today and Tomorrow. 2024;93(3):65-83. https://doi.org/10.35339/msz.2024.93.3.nes [in Ukrainian]. Archived: https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.14651882 Abstract Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) is legally used in such countries as the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Colombia, Canada, Australia, Spain, Germany, and the USA. Portugal and New Zealand are considering legal euthanasia laws. MAiD is performed by injecting a lethal substance into a terminally ill person by a doctor or the patient himself. Euthanasia is one of the services that palliative patients need in the last months and days of their lives. The availability of MAiD increases the country's ranking in the Quality of Death Index and reduces the need for euthanasia tourism. Ukraine needs the legalization of MAiD, as well as the improvement of the palliative and hospice care system in general. The research was conducted using the methods of systematic analysis, the comparative method and the bibliosemantic method with the search for literary sources and legal acts in Google, Google Scholar and PubMed, with an emphasis on Ukraine, Switzerland, the USA, Canada and Israel. During the comparative analysis, it was concluded that the Canadian model of the MAiD is optimal for Ukraine, taking into account the experience of its construction, society's perception and problems related to the application of the legislative norms of the MAiD. The Canadian health care system, the MAiD practice is guided by the social perception of its work models. Legislators respond sensitively to thorough scientific research and court decisions, which respect state and social institutions. The analyzed results of scientific research in Switzerland, the USA and Israel warn researchers and legislators against possible abuses in the implementation of MAiD. But at the same time, they attest to the importance of an accessible MAiD procedure for terminally ill palliative patients, which should be available for the realization of the right to a dignified death along with quality palliative medicine for the realization of the right to a dignified life. Keywords: palliative and hospice care, health care system reform, Medical Assistance in Dying, Quality of Death Index, right to life, right to die.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: Theoretical or conceptual
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.991
Threshold uncertainty score0.146

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.009
Scholarly communication0.0130.009
Open science0.0010.005
Research integrity0.0020.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0440.017

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 head0.103
GPT teacher head0.392
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueZenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)Same topicGlobal Healthcare and Medical TourismFrench-language works237,207