Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Death by suicide is widely held as an undesirable outcome. Most Western countries place emphasis on patient autonomy, a concept of controversy in relation to suicide. This paper explores the tensions between patients' rights and many societies' overarching desire to prevent suicide, while clarifying the relations between mental disorders, mental capacity, and rational suicide. METHODS: A literature search was conducted using search terms of suicide and ethics in the PubMed and LexisNexis Academic databases. Article titles and abstracts were reviewed and deemed relevant if the paper addressed topics of rational suicide, patient autonomy or rights, or responsibility for life. Further articles were found from reference lists and by suggestion from preliminary reviewers of this paper. RESULTS: Suicidal behaviour in a person cannot be reliably predicted, yet various associations and organizations have developed standards of care for managing patients exhibiting suicidal behaviour. The responsibility for preventing suicide tends to be placed on the treating clinician. In cases where a person is capable of making treatment decisions--uninfluenced by any mental disorder--there is growing interest in the concept of rational suicide. CONCLUSIONS: There is much debate about whether suicide can ever be rational. Designating suicide as an undesirable event that should never occur raises the debate of who is responsible for one's life and runs the risk of erroneously attributing blame for suicide. While upholding patient rights of autonomy in psychiatric care is laudable, cases of suicidality warrant a delicate consideration of clinical judgment, duty of care, and legal obligations.
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 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.017 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".