ArticleHealthcare (Basel, Switzerland)2023
Institutional Resistance to Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada: Arguments and Realities Emerging in the Public Domain.
Article in Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland), 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Euthanasia in End-of-Life Care: Ethical Compassion or Dilemma?Journal of caring sciences · 2025Article
- Health leaders' perspectives and attitudes on medical assistance in dying and its legalization: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- The moral web of accessibility to medical assistance in dying: Reflections from the Canadian context.Nursing ethics · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Since the legalization of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada in 2016, volitional non-participation in MAiD on the part of some healthcare institutions has revealed ethical uncertainties, potential access problems, and policy gaps. The problem has remained much neglected in the literature base, with no comprehensive studies on the subject so far. We analyzed print media articles and grey literature on institutional objections to and non-participation in MAiD. Thematic analyses were performed on all data to better understand the diverse stakeholder arguments and positions that characterize this important public health debate. Our search yielded 89 relevant media articles and 22 legislative, policy, and other relevant documents published since 2016 in the English language. We identified four main themes about institutional refusals to participate in MAiD, articulated as the following questions: (1) Who has the right to conscience? (2) Can MAiD be considered a palliative practice? (3) Are there imbalances across diverse stakeholder rights and burdens? and (4) Where are the gaps being felt in MAiD service implementation? Stakeholder views about institutional conscience with respect to MAiD are varied, complex, and evolving. In the absence of substantial systematic evidence, public domain materials constitute a key resource for understanding the implications for service access and determining the relevance of this contentious issue for future MAiD research and policy.
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.