Medical Futility: Interdisciplinary and International Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This book addresses the issues and challenges raised by the high-profile cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans. The individual chapters, which complement one other, were written by scholars with expertise in Law, Medicine, Medical Ethics, Theology, Health Policy and Management, English Literature, Nursing and History, from the UK, Australia, Canada, the Czech Republic, France, Germany, India, Spain, Turkey and the USA. \n \nThe following are among the key questions explored in the book. Is the courtroom an appropriate forum for resolving conflicts relating to medical futility in paediatrics? If so, should parental rights be protected by confining judicial powers only to cases where there is a risk of significant harm to the infant; or should the “best interests” test continue to be recognised as the “gold standard” for paediatric cases? If not, should mediation be used instead, but how well would this alternative method of dispute resolution work for medical futility conflicts? Further, should social media be deployed to garner support, and should outsiders who are not fully acquainted with the medical facts refrain from intervening? And, how are comparable situations likely to be managed in different countries? What lessons can be learned from them as well as from religious perspectives?
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.024 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.015 | 0.014 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Research integrity | 0.012 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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".