MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6964600515 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6996345.v1

Practitioners’ experiences with 2021 amendments to Canada’s medical assistance in dying law: a qualitative analysis

2023· other· en· W6964600515 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLegislationThematic analysisParliamentNova scotiaSupreme courtQualitative researchWorkloadQualitative analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 <i>Carter v Canada</i> 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 (<i>n</i> = 10), Ontario (<i>n</i> = 15) and Nova Scotia (<i>n</i> = 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.465
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.004
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0350.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.431
Teacher spread0.341 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207