MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Organ Donation and Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada

2017· article· en· W2750780486 on OpenAlexaffabout
Vanessa Gruben, Jennifer A. Chandler

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrgan donationDonationLegislationOrgan procurementInformed consentMedicineTissue DonationLawFamily medicinePolitical scienceTransplantationSurgeryAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction In June 2016, medical assistance in dying (MAiD) became legal in Canada. This has prompted many to ask whether organ donation following MAiD should be permitted and under what circumstances. Indeed, since the MAiD legislation came into effect, reports indicate that a few individuals have donated organs following medical assistance in dying. This study considers the legal and ethical questions that arising regarding organ donation following MAiD in Canada. Methods The authors have engaged in a review of the relevant federal and provincial laws and policies governing MAiD and organ donation. These include the law establishing the conditions under which an individual may undergo MAiD, provincial laws setting out the consent requirements for organ donation and pre-mortem interventions to determine eligibility for organ donation and conscientious objection policies for health care providers. The authors have also reviewed the relevant national and international literature on organ donation following MAiD. Results Our study indicates that there are several important legal and ethical questions that must be considered in developing a framework for organ donation following MAiD in Canada. What legal protections are necessary to ensure free and informed consent to organ donation following MAiD? Several concerns arise such as the risk that patients may feel pressured or coerced to consent to organ donation. Potential safeguards to ensure consent is voluntary include precluding physicians and organ procurement organizations from approaching patients to seek their consent for organ donation, separating the decisions concerning MAiD and organ donation, precluding directed donation and ensuring that patients are aware that they can withdraw consent to MAiD and/or organ donation at any time. Other pressing questions include the extent to which health care professionals may exercise a conscientious objection to this practice and whether the recipient of an organ should be informed that an organ was obtained from an individual who underwent MAiD. In addition to domestic legislation, the experience of countries like Belgium and the Netherlands offer important guidance in addressing some of these difficult questions. Conclusion Organ donation following MAiD has the potential to benefit patients and increase organs available for donation in Canada. This study considers the difficult legal and ethical questions that arise in this context and proposes a framework for organ donation following MAiD in Canada. Reference: 1. Criminal Code - R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46 (Section 241).

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.599
Threshold uncertainty score0.635

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.265
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207