MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412351079 · doi:10.32920/29521901

At What Cost? Framing mental illness in digital news media coverage of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID)

2025· preprint· en· W4412351079 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Danielle Landry, Madeeha Kafeel, Matthew R. Jackman, Max Ferguson

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health via Writing
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFraming (construction)Mental illnessFraming effectMedia coverageNews mediaMedia studiesPsychologyAdvertisingPsychiatryMental healthSociologySocial psychologyBusinessHistory

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This is the final report of the research study entitled 'At What Cost? Framing Mental Illness in Digital News Media Coverage of Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID)'. This report contributes to the recent and growing body of scholarship on the rapidly shifting terrain of MAiD in Canada. Our study aimed to capture how Canadian news media portrays MAID's impending expansion to include mental illness and frames the lives of people diagnosed with mental illness. Further, it aimed to evaluate the sociopolitical risks of current news reporting practices. Our team conducted a critical discourse analysis (CDA) of English-language Canadian news media articles from 2020 to 2024 (n=367) using Factiva to understand how MAID MD-SUMC and people diagnosed with mental illness are rhetorically represented within these texts. Outlining the evolution of MAID legislation in Canada and ongoing debates on whether or not MAiD should be considered a form of suicide, the contextual groundwork for the project is laid out. Several limitations related to the use of Factiva are acknowledged. Our analysis of Canadian news reports underscore how MAiD MD-SUMC is primarily written up as a political news story rather than a health issue. Articles primarily reported on the actions of politicians on Parliament Hill. The voices and everyday experiences of people with lived experience (PWLE) of mental illness were limited. This absence raises concerns about the implications of MAID's expansion for impacted communities. Our textual analysis attended to article headlines, who spoke within the text, the words used to describe MAiD and mental illness, and discussions of death. Findings draw attention to the consequences of mainstream news media coverage that consistently pairs 'mental illness' with 'suffering'. To enhance the quality and inclusivity of MAID MD-SUMC reporting, four recommendations are made. First, it is recommended that MAID be reported on as a health issue rather than political news, to better engage the public in health matters. Second, it is recommended that Canadian media guidelines for MAiD be developed and that impacted communities be involved in the development of those guidelines. Third, emphasis is placed on the need to minimize harm. Avoid equating mental illness with suffering in reports about MAID MD-SUMC in order to prevent harmful stereotypes. Fourth, it is recommended that news outlets and reporters covering MAID consider the photographs they use more carefully, to avoid tropes.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.030
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.658
Threshold uncertainty score0.689

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.030
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0100.010
Scholarly communication0.0130.006
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.343 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicMental Health via WritingFrench-language works237,207