MAID in Ecuador: Breaking the paradigm: A legal analysis of the unconstitutionality of the MAID prohibition in Ecuador
Bibliographic record
Abstract
MAID is one of the topics that has raised more ethical and legal debates in recent decades.These discussions confront two opposing positions: the right of people to make free decisions, including deciding when and how to die, and the government's obligation to protect the vulnerable and respect the sanctity of life principle.Currently, only nine legislations around the world recognize the right of patients to exercise their right to die; among these legislations are Canada and Colombia.In these countries, MAID was legalized through the decisions made by the highest courts of the abovementioned countries.In Ecuador, MAID is currently illegal.However, this work demonstrates that the MAID Prohibition in Ecuador violates the rights to liberty, life, and dignity.Rights recognized in the Ecuadorian Constitution.The proportionality principle does not justify this violation of rights since other appropriate, and less restrictive measures can reach the objective of protecting the most vulnerable.I would like to thank the Research Group on Health Law for inviting me to be a fellow in 2017-2019.I would like to thank my friend Javier for translating the summary of this Thesis into French.To my parents, Janneth and Pablo, without your support and endless love, none of this be possible.Thank you for always believing in me.To Mishelle, my little sister.You are my strength to try to be a better person every day.Thank you for your priceless advice, support, and love.You are my rock.To Daniel, thank you for your unconditional love
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 | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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 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".