Advocacy considerations regarding medical aid in dying for people with nonterminal chronic illnesses and disabilities.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Medical aid in dying (MAID) has long been a contentious issue in both professional ethics and within the disability community. Some view it as an affirmation of self-determination and autonomy, while others view it as a codification of ableism, potentially to the point of eugenics. With Canada's recent expansion of MAID eligibility to people with nonterminal chronic illnesses and disabilities, discussions about the ethics of MAID legislation have been renewed, particularly among people with disabilities. METHOD: This commentary reviews the common arguments for and against MAID, with a focus on the views, concerns, and opinions within the disability community. New concerns from within the disability community relating to Canada's expansion of MAID to people with nonterminal disabilities are also discussed. Finally, the relation of these concerns to the foundational principles of rehabilitation psychology is discussed. RESULTS: The disability community has historically had a divided view on MAID, with some viewing it as an enactment of ableism and others viewing it as an enactment of self-determination. Expansion of MAID eligibility to individuals with nonterminal illness and disabilities also raises concerns about governments prioritizing MAID over community support for people with disabilities. CONCLUSION/IMPLICATIONS: MAID, especially as applied to individuals with nonterminal illness, is an ethically complex issue in the disability community that addresses many of the foundational principles of rehabilitation psychology. Thus, the decision of advocating for and against MAID in people with nonterminal disabilities is a complicated decision for rehabilitation psychologists. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".