Exploring attitudes toward physician-assisted death in patients with life-limiting illnesses with varying experiences of palliative care: a pilot study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: On February 6th, 2015, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that competent adults suffering intolerably from a grievous and irremediable medical condition have the right to the assistance of a physician in ending their own lives, an act known as physician-assisted death, and later defined as medical assistance in dying, allowing for provision by a physician or a nurse practitioner. As of June 6th, 2016, this is no longer illegal across Canada. There is strong support amongst the general population for physician-assisted death, however there is no recent data on the attitudes of terminally ill patients. Our main objective was to gain information on terminally ill patients' general and personal attitudes toward physician-assisted death. METHODS: This is an exploratory pilot study. We surveyed three groups of patients with life-limiting diagnoses: one with new referrals to palliative care; one with no palliative care involvement; and one with prior and ongoing management by a palliative care team. Respondents were surveyed twice, approximately two weeks apart, and rated their general attitudes toward physician-assisted death and the hypothetical consideration of physician-assisted death for oneself on a five-point Likert scale at baseline and follow-up. Respondents with new referrals to palliative care were surveyed before and after palliative care consultation. This study was approved by The Western University Health Sciences Research Ethics Board and Lawson Health Research Institute. RESULTS: We surveyed 102 participants, 70 of whom completed both surveys (31% dropout rate). Participants in all groups predominantly responded between somewhat agree (4 on a 5-point Likert scale) and strongly agree (5 on the Likert scale) when asked about their general attitude toward physician-assisted death. Patients with prior palliative care involvement reported the highest average ratings of hypothetical consideration of physician-assisted death for oneself on a 5-point Likert scale (3.4 at baseline; 3.9 at follow-up), followed by patients with a new palliative consultation (3.2 at baseline; 3.3 at follow-up), and patients with no palliative involvement (2.6 at baseline; 2.9 at follow-up). CONCLUSIONS: Given the preliminary results of this pilot study, we can conclude that terminally ill patients generally agree that physician-assisted death should be available to patients with life-limiting illnesses. Furthermore, descriptive data show a trend for higher hypothetical consideration of physician-assisted death in those patients with prior and ongoing palliative care involvement than patients without palliative involvement. Responses in all groups remained fairly consistent over the two-week period.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".