ArticleCanadian geriatrics journal : CGJ2021
Advance Requests for Medical Assistance in Dying in Dementia: a Survey Study of Dementia Care Specialists.
Article in Canadian geriatrics journal : CGJ, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Advance Requests for Medical Assistance in Dying in the International Context: Some Legal Issues for the Canadian Case.Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2025Article
- Physician-Assisted Suicide in Dementia: Paradoxes, Pitfalls and the Need for Prudence.Frontiers in sociology · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCurrent Canadian Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) legislation requires individuals to have the mental capacity to consent at the time of the procedure. Advance requests for MAiD (ARs for MAiD) could allow individuals to document conditions where MAiD would be desired in the setting of progressive dementia.
methodsGreater Vancouver area dementia care clinicians from family practice, geriatric medicine, geriatric psychiatry, and palliative care were approached to participate in an online survey to assess attitudes around the appropriateness of ARs for MAiD. Quantitative analysis of survey questions and qualitative analysis of open-ended response questions were performed.
resultsOf 630 clinicians approached, 80 were included in the data analysis. 64% of respondents supported legislation allowing ARs for MAiD in dementia. 96% of respondents articulated barriers and concerns, including determination of capacity, protecting the interests of the future individual, navigating conflict among stakeholders, and identifying coercion. 78% of respondents agreed with a mandatory capacity assessment to create an AR, and 59% agreed that consensus between clinicians and substitute decision-makers was required to enact an AR.
conclusionThe majority of Vancouver dementia care clinicians participating in this study support legislation allowing ARs for MAiD in dementia, while also articulating ethical and logistical concerns with its application.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.