Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33427031›Full record

ArticleNursing ethics2021

Conscientious objection to medical assistance in dying in rural/remote nursing.

Julia Panchuk, Lorraine M Thirsk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Nursing ethics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Defining Moral Injury: A Natural Scaffold.Journal of religion and health · 2026
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Julia Panchuk384819Athabasca University, Canada.
Lorraine M Thirsk384819Athabasca University, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5459-9491

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In 2016, the Supreme Court of Canada legalized medical assistance in dying in Canada. Similar to jurisdictions where this has been a more long-standing option for end-of-life care, the Supreme Court's decision in Canada included a caveat that no healthcare provider could be compelled to participate in medical assistance in dying. The Canadian Nurses Association, in alignment with numerous ethical guidelines for healthcare providers around the globe, maintains that nurses may opt out of participation in medical assistance in dying if they conscientiously object to this procedure. The realities of implementing medical assistance in dying are still unfolding. One area that has received little attention in the literature thus far is the ability of nurses who

Indexed as

Conscientious Refusal to TreatRural NursingSuicide, AssistedTerminal CareCanadaHumansMedical AssistanceMoralsConscientious objectionethical decision-makingethicseuthanasiamedical assistance in dyingrural and remote nursing

Identifiers

PMID33427031
PMCPMC8366177

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.