MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7133094802

“A Different Set of Eyes”: Breaking the Silence with Mature Minors about Medical Assistance in Dying Policy in Canada

2024· dissertation· W7133094802 on OpenAlexfundaboutno aff
Sydney Campbell

Bibliographic record

VenueTSpace · 2024
Typedissertation
Language
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersSocial Sciences and Humanities Research Council of CanadaUniversity of TorontoGovernment of Ontario
KeywordsLegislatureScholarshipSilencePublic policyNarrativeQualitative researchChild protectionLegislation
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) was decriminalized in Canada in June 2016. In the approved legislation, mature minors (legally capable individuals under 18 years of age) were not permitted to access MAID. By contrast, assisted dying for minors is permitted in Belgium and the Netherlands under varying conditions. Mature minors were never engaged in the Canadian legislative process and there is very little research on mature minors’ views on MAID and their preferred role in public policy discussions about MAID. This dissertation responds to these public policy and research gaps.Methods: First, I engaged in conceptual scholarship to describe what clinical and sociological literatures contribute toward understanding the nature of death and dying related to children. Second, I conducted a comparative policy analysis using discourse coalition theory to examine policy discourse on MAID for mature minors in Canada, the Netherlands, and Belgium. Third, I conducted a qualitative study involving interviews with mature minors with critical, complex illnesses, and some parents, to explore their views on MAID. Findings: The findings from this dissertation offer many important takeaways. Study 1 revealed an “unspeakable nature” of childhood death and dying in health care (clinically and conceptually), where recognition of childhood death was rejected in pursuit and protection of ‘hope’ for recovery. Study 2 identified differences in legislative processes—Canada followed a judicial and parliamentary approach and the Netherlands/Belgium’s were parliamentary—and in dominant values and narratives underpinning policy journeys—all focused on alleviation of suffering, but Canada had a greater emphasis on rights. Study 3 highlighted that participants’ prioritize the consideration of patient suffering when contemplating MAID for mature minors, that their views and narratives were nuanced and evolving, and their advocacy for the inclusion of mature minors in related policy discussions. Conclusion: This work centralizes the voices of young people, revealing the significance of suffering in discussions related to MAID for mature minors, paediatric health care, and policy engagement. It establishes important insights for conceptualizing a ‘good death’ in childhood. Finally, the dissertation provides suggestions when considering the engagement of mature minors in clinical and policy spaces related to MAID.

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)0.009
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.165
Threshold uncertainty score0.968

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0090.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0570.034
Scholarly communication0.0120.005
Open science0.0040.009
Research integrity0.0040.011
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.324 · 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 designQualitative
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
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTSpaceSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207