MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3086109149 · doi:10.21037/apm-19-631

Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada: practical aspects for healthcare teams

2020· article· en· W3086109149 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ellen Wiebe, Stefanie Green, Kim Wiebe

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Palliative Medicine · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaCanadian Counselling and Psychotherapy AssociationManitoba HealthUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMedical prescriptionHealth careFaithFamily medicineMedical emergencyNursingLaw

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this paper we document some of the practical aspects of implementing medical assistance in dying (MAiD) since it became legal in Canada in 2016. The percentage of annual deaths in Canada due to MAiD varies widely, ranging from less than 0.5% in some areas to over 5% in others. By the end of 2019, approximately 13,000 people had an assisted death in Canada (1.6% of all deaths). The average age is 73 years and the majority have cancer (64%), followed by end-stage organ failure (17%), and neurological disease (11%). The safeguards in Canadian law include having two witnesses sign the patient request form, having two independent clinicians agree that the patient is eligible, and requiring a 10-day waiting period after the request is made. Although the criminal law is federal and applies throughout the nation, health services managed provincially, and there are many different models of care being used. Some provinces have standardized prescriptions and procedures for assisted dying with centralized care coordinators supporting both patients and providers. Other provinces expect individual providers to manage all aspects of assisted dying. The procedure and medications are provided free of charge to patients, but it took years before many providers were remunerated for their services. Access for patients has been a problem because there are too few providers of care (especially in rural areas), and many people have difficulty getting accurate information about the process. Many faith-based health care facilities continue to refuse to allow assisted dying within their facilities, so patients requesting MAiD need to be transferred to other locations in their last hours of life. Solutions to these problems have included the development of more training and support for providers and the creation of coordinating centres that provide information and support for patients throughout the process. Telemedicine is used for assessment of eligibility when required, especially during the COVID pandemic. There are similarities in problems of access to all end of life care options, including palliative care and residential hospices. The relationships between providers of assisted dying and specialists in palliative care vary, and examples exist throughout the spectrum from collegial to hostile. This is slowly improving, as individual clinicians gain more experience with patients choosing assisted dying. Public culture is changing as there are more conversations occurring about death and dying.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.011
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.456
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.011
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.340
GPT teacher head0.507
Teacher spread0.167 · 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.

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

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of Palliative MedicineSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207