MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4389688159 · doi:10.46747/cfp.6912853

Medical assistance in dying when natural death is not reasonably foreseeable

2023· article· en· W4389688159 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Ellen Wiebe, Michaela Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Family Physician · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPalliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFast trackFamily medicineMedical emergencySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To describe clinicians' experiences with assessing patients making track 2 requests for medical assistance in dying (MAID) and providing MAID to such patients in the first 6 months after Canada amended relevant legislation in March 2021 to expand access to MAID. DESIGN: Online survey with closed and open-ended questions about clinicians' experiences with individual patients making track 2 MAID requests. SETTING: Canada. PARTICIPANTS: Doctors and nurse practitioners who were members of the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The most common reasons patients gave for making track 2 MAID requests and the challenges providers identified in doing these assessments. RESULTS: Twenty-three MAID providers submitted information about 54 patients who had made track 2 requests between March 17, 2021 and September 17, 2021. The most common diagnoses were chronic pain syndromes, affecting 28 patients (51.9%), and complex chronic conditions such as myalgic encephalomyelitis or chronic fatigue syndrome, affecting 8 patients (14.8%). The most common challenges providers reported were related to patients having concurrent mental illness, noted in 37 assessments (68.5%). In 8 cases (14.8%), providers faced challenges in finding experts to help with assessments. In 19 cases (35.2%), providers felt patients had not been offered all appropriate and available treatments, and in 9 cases (16.7%) providers encountered difficulties in finding such treatments for patients. CONCLUSION: Providers of MAID described many challenges in their experiences with patients making track 2 requests, including assessing individuals with concurrent mental illnesses, being uncertain that patients had been offered appropriate treatments prior to seeking MAID, and being unsure whether patients had seriously considered available treatments. Many providers experienced moral distress in attempting to balance patients' rights with what might be in patients' best interests. This is different from experiences providers have had with patients making track 1 requests, as most of these patients have end-stage malignancy or organ failure and seldom have unmet health care needs. This information could be used to enhance education and support for clinicians as they help patients with track 2 requests access their right to peaceful deaths.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.022
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.053

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.022
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.003
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.097
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.262 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations14
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Family PhysicianSame topicPalliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesFrench-language works237,207