Walking Alongside: Views of Family Members on Medical Assistance in Dying for Mental Illness as the Sole Underlying Medical Condition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was introduced into Canadian federal legislation in 2016. Mental illness as the sole underlying medical condition (MI-SUMC) is currently excluded from eligibility; such exclusion is scheduled to expire on March 17, 2024. Irremediability, capacity, quality of life, autonomy, family involvement, and healthcare system constraints have been debated intensively. Recent studies have not explored the views of family members of persons with mental illness on MAiD MI-SUMC. This study aimed to fill this knowledge gap. Twenty-five Ontario residents who had a loved one with mental illness participated. A persona-scenario exercise was designed to explore participants' views on MAiD MI-SUMC in hypothetical situations. Reflexive thematic analysis was used to analyze the data. A lived experience-advisory panel was engaged throughout the study. Seven themes were developed: Witnessing suffering; A road with barriers and limitations; Societal barriers; The unknowns of mental illness; Individual choices: the life or death that a person wants; MAiD MI-SUMC as an acceptable choice when suffering cannot be relieved with available treatments and supports; and The emotional outcome. Participants constructed their views based on their experience of supporting a loved one with mental illness. MAiD MI-SUMC was perceived as a multifaceted issue, whose acceptability and potential introduction required a concurrent exploration and discussion of the challenges arising due to limitations of the healthcare system, the opportunities and limits to family involvement, and the value of patient autonomy.
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 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".