Accessing Medical Assistance in Death (MAiD): An interpretative phenomenological analysis of experiences with MAiD by family members and providers in Manitoba; A thesis submitted to the Faculty of Graduate Studies in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the Master of Arts degree, Department of Criminal Justice, The University of Winnipeg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research explored first-hand experiences with medical assistance in death (MAiD) in Manitoba. It aimed to uncover what experiences revealed about the process behind this new end-of-life option in Canada. Specifically, the research aimed to reveal positive and negative aspects of the MAiD process in Manitoba, from which recommendations can be extracted. To accomplish this, semi-structured, open-ended interviews were conducted with eleven family members (who assisted with the MAiD process) as well as six members of the MAiD team (physicians, nurses, and a social worker). Interviews inquired into participant experiences with the MAiD process and legislation. Interviews were subsequently transcribed (anonymously) and manually analyzed for common themes among participants. Two major themes with subthemes were identified from participant responses. The first theme concentrates on the lack of MAiD awareness and understanding of MAiD requirements among the public and medical professionals. This lack of awareness stems from the absence of standardized education for medical professionals which in turn impedes access to MAiD for patients. The second theme discusses how moral objections (by loved ones, healthcare workers, or abstaining institutions) have also impacted the process. Notably, faith-based facilities (which prohibit MAiD), require patients to transfer elsewhere in order to access MAiD, which at times delays access or in some cases prevents it altogether. Transfers from abstaining facilities were described by participants as a drain on resources, morally distressing, and onerous for patients, sometimes ending unfavourably for them or preventing access to MAiD altogether. These findings call for better information dissemination about MAiD and most importantly, standardized education or professional development for healthcare providers. Greater public awareness of MAiD and its regulations is needed to ensure equitable access to this service, especially in rural areas. Finally, abstaining policies must be re-examined in order to alleviate transfer burdens for patients as well as healthcare providers and families. Further research is required to assess the depth and breadth of MAiD awareness across Canada, as well as track its progression over the years.
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 | 0.006 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.025 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".