Informal care-givers' attitudes towards medical assistance in dying for persons with dementia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Medical assistance in dying (MAID) is legal in Canada but cannot be accessed through an advance request. Some data suggest that informal care-givers of persons with dementia support the legalisation of advance requests for MAID. Opponents argue that care-givers' support is due to society's failure to address their well-documented burden and unmet needs. To our knowledge, this assumption has never been tested. To fill this knowledge gap, we conducted a survey among 204 Canadian informal care-givers of persons with dementia to (a) elicit their attitudes towards allowing no longer competent adults to access MAID through an advance request, and (b) test the hypothesis that attitudes are in part driven by the level of burden experienced by care-givers and unmet needs for support. Attitudes were elicited with a clinical vignette involving a woman with Alzheimer's disease who requests MAID while still competent, or through an advance request for the time after she would lose decisional capacity. Informal care-givers' support for MAID ranged from 60 per cent in the scenario where the person is still competent and likely has several more years to live, to 87 per cent when she is depicted as no longer competent, in severe distress and close to death. Quality-of-life considerations and the value of self-determination were key arguments in support of legalising advance requests for MAID. Using multivariable logistic regression, we found no evidence that burden and unmet support needs influence attitudes towards advance requests for MAID, after controlling for other determinants. These findings contribute new insights into people's attitudes towards the sensitive issue of whether MAID should be extended to persons with dementia-induced decisional incapacity.
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 | 0.004 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".