Nurse leaders’ role in medical assistance in dying: A relational ethics approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent changes to the Criminal Code of Canada have resulted in the right of competent adult Canadians to request medical assistance in dying (MAID). Healthcare professionals now can participate if the individual meets specific outlined criteria. There remains confusion and lack of knowledge about the specific role of nurses in MAID. MAID is a controversial topic and nurses may be faced with the challenge of balancing the duty to provide routine care, with moral reservations about MAID. The role of a nursing leader is to support nurses by ensuring they have the knowledge they require to care for patients requesting the service, whether or not the nurse is directly involved in the MAID process. The moral dilemmas raised by MAID provide an opportunity to look at a relational ethics approach to nursing leadership both for MAID and other difficult situations that arise in nursing practice. Relational ethics is a framework that proposes that the ethical moments in healthcare are based on relationships and fostering growth, healing, and health through the foundational concepts of mutual respect, engagement, embodiment, and environment. This article will use a relational ethics framework to examine how nursing leadership can support nurses who care for patients requesting MAID.
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 | 0.025 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.012 | 0.043 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.012 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".