Exploring How Family Members Experience Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD)
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored how family members experience Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD), since the 2016 Canadian legislation. The Listening Guide, a qualitative research methodology, was used to hear the experiences of seven family members from across Canada, whose loved one received MAiD. Analyses revealed that family members experienced tension in negotiating relationship to themselves, to their loved one, and to others involved. These tensions were heard in four voices throughout the study: witnessing, caregiving, honouring choice and supporting dignity, and surrendering and letting go. \n\nCurrent procedures and policies tend to focus on the individual receiving MAiD. Shifting practices to align with relational ethics could challenge healthcare providers to consider how they might support family members. By acknowledging the social context of the patient receiving MAiD, this study extends the discourse surrounding MAiD beyond the realm of individual autonomy, suggesting a shift in care from being patient-focused to being truly person-centred.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.031 | 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 it