ArticleBMJ open2024
When medical assistance in dying is not a last resort option: survey of the Canadian public.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. 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.
- Assisted Dying in Unjust Conditions.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2026Article
- Health leaders' perspectives and attitudes on medical assistance in dying and its legalization: a qualitative study.BMC medical ethics · 2025Article
- Report from the Fourth International Last Aid Conference: Last Aid and networks in community palliative care.Palliative care and social practice · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesWhat are the Canadian public's understanding of and views toward medical assistance in dying (MAID) in persons refusing recommended treatment or lacking access to standard treatment or resources? DESIGN/
settingAn online survey assessed knowledge of and support for Canadian MAID law, and views about four specific scenarios in a two (medical or psychiatric) by two (treatment refusal or lack of access) design.
participantsA quota sample (N=2140) matched to the 2021 Canadian census by age, gender, income, education and province. MAIN OUTCOMES: Participants' level of support for MAID in general and in the four specific scenarios.
resultsOnly 12.1% correctly answered ≥4 of 5 knowledge questions about the MAID law; only 19.2% knew terminal illness is not required and 20.2% knew treatment refusal is compatible with eligibility. 73.3% of participants expressed support for the MAID law in general, matching a nationally representative poll that used the same question. 40.4% of respondents supported MAID for mental illnesses. Support for MAID in the scenarios depicting refusal or lack of access to treatment ranged from 23.2% (lack of access in medical condition) to 32.0% (treatment refusal in medical illness). Older age, more education, higher income, lower religious attendance or being white was associated with greater support for MAID in general but was either negatively associated or not associated with support for MAID in the four refusal or lack of access scenarios.
conclusionsMost Canadians support the current MAID law but appear unaware that MAID cases they do not support are compatible with that law. The lower support for MAID in the four scenarios cuts across sociodemographics. The gap between current policy and public opinion warrants further study. For jurisdictions debating MAID, opinion surveys may need to go beyond assessing general attitudes, and target knowledge and views regarding implications of legalisation.
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.