ArticleBMC palliative care2024
Rural healthcare professionals' participation in Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD): beyond a binary decision.
Article in BMC palliative care, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Nurses' Experiences and Perspectives of Conscientious Objection in Practice: A Qualitative Systematic Review.Journal of advanced nursing · 2026Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Assisted Suicide and Suicide Prevention: Ethical Perspectives, Attitudes and Challenges for Nurses in Long-Term Care-A Qualitative Focus Group Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Physicians' moral distinctions between medical assistance in dying (MAiD) and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment in Canada: a qualitative descriptive study.BMC medical 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
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMedical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) was legalized in Canada in 2016 and amended in 2021. At the time that this study was conducted, the federal government was considering expanding the eligibility criteria to include patients whose death was not reasonably foreseeable. The purpose of this study was to better understand rural healthcare professionals' experiences with assisted dying set against the backdrop of legislative expansion.
methodsA qualitative exploratory study was undertaken with general rural practice physicians, nurse practitioners, registered nurses, ethicists, patients, and patient families in rural Southern Alberta, Canada. For this paper, data from 18 audio-recorded and transcribed semi-structured interviews with healthcare professionals were analyzed using thematic analysis. Categories and patterns of shared meaning that linked to an overarching theme were identified.
resultsBetween the binary positions of full support for and conscientious objection to assisted dying, rural healthcare professionals' decisions to participate in MAiD was based on their moral convictions, various contextual factors, and their participation thresholds. Factors including patient suffering; personal and professional values and beliefs; relationships with colleagues, patients and family, and community; and changing MAiD policy and legislation created nuances that informed their decision-making.
conclusionsThe interplay of multiple factors and their degree of influence on healthcare professionals' decision-making create multiple decision points between full support for and participation in MAiD processes and complete opposition and/or abstention. Moreover, our findings suggest evolving policy and legislation have the potential to increase rural healthcare professionals' uncertainty and level of discomfort in providing services. We propose that the binary language typically used in the MAiD discourse be reframed to reflect that decision-making processes and actions are often fluid and situational.
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.