Physicians’ Characteristics and Attitudes Towards Medically Assisted Dying for Non-Competent Patients with Dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The federal and Quebec governments are both considering extending medical aid/assistance in dying (MAID) to non-competent patients who would have requested MAID prior to losing capacity. In 2016-2017, we surveyed 136 Quebec physicians (response rate: 25.5%) on their attitudes towards extending MAID to such patients. Complementing our published findings, we herein identify demographic and practice characteristics that distinguish physicians who reported being open to extending MAID to non-competent patients with dementia, or willing to administer MAID themselves should it be legal, from those who were not. We found that physicians who were older, had stronger religious beliefs, were trained in palliative care, practiced in a teaching hospital, and had not received assisted dying requests in the year preceding the survey held less favourable attitudes towards MAID for non-competent patients with dementia. These findings will inform current deliberations as to whether assistance in dying should be extended to non-competent patients in some circumstances.
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 | 0.001 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".