Practitioners’ experiences with 2021 amendments to Canada’s medical assistance in dying law: a qualitative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:In 2016, Canada joined the growing number of jurisdictions to legalize medical assistance in dying (MAiD), when the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision in Carter v Canada took effect and the Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-14. Five years later, Bill C-7 introduced several significant amendments. These included removing the ‘reasonably foreseeable natural death’ requirement (an aspect that was widely debated) and introducing the final consent waiver. Since Bill C-7 is so new, very little research has investigated its operation in practice.Objectives:This study investigates the experiences of MAiD assessors and providers regarding the Bill C-7 amendments. It explores implications for understanding and improving regulatory reform and implementation.Design:Qualitative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews.Methods:In all, 32 MAiD assessors and providers (25 physicians and 7 nurse practitioners) from British Columbia (n = 10), Ontario (n = 15) and Nova Scotia (n = 7) were interviewed.Results:The analysis resulted in five themes: (1) removing barriers to MAiD access; (2) navigating regulatory and systems recalibration; (3) recognizing workload burdens; (4) determining individual ethical boundaries of practice and (5) grappling with ethical tensions arising from broader health system challenges.Conclusion:This is one of the first studies to investigate physicians’ and nurse practitioners’ experiences of the impact of Bill C-7 after the legislation was passed. Bill C-7 addressed key problems under Bill C-14, including the two witnesses requirement and the 10-day waiting period. However, it also introduced new complexities as practitioners decided how to approach cases involving a non-reasonably foreseeable natural death (and contemplated the advent of MAiD for persons with a mental disorder as a sole underlying condition). This study highlights the importance of involving practitioners in advance of legislative changes. It also emphasizes how the regulation of MAiD involves a range of organizations, which requires strong leadership and coordination from the government.
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 | 0.027 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.023 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.007 |
| 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".