ArticleBioethics2026
Medically Assisted Dying Practices: What Role for Clinical Ethicists?
Article in Bioethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Medically assisted dying (AD) practices have been legalized in several jurisdictions throughout the world over the last two decades. Because of this increased trend, more individuals now have access to a self-chosen death. Despite its legalization and the diversity of frameworks governing AD, it remains fraught with ethical challenges. However, there is a dearth of literature regarding the specific roles clinical ethicists (CEs) may have in AD provision. We sought to address this literature gap by: (1) Gathering healthcare professionals' (HPs) and CEs perspectives on how CEs may contribute; (2) Identifying how CEs may have been involved thus far; (3) Identifying promising practices and pitfalls related to their involvement. An exploratory qualitative study using focus groups, purposive and snowball sampling. Four online focus groups were held. Groups comprised of (1) HPs and (2) CEs from Quebec and Switzerland. Data was analyzed using thematic analysis. Altogether 21 persons participated, among them 10 ethicists and 11 HPs. Four major themes were identified: (1) Specific Roles for CEs; (2) CEs competencies deemed useful in AD provision; (3) Operationalization of CEs' involvement 5) Obstacles/Pitfalls associated to CEs' involvement in AD. Several roles for CEs have been identified that have been associated with specific ethical challenges that arise in AD. Findings indicate that CEs' integration in AD should be context dependent and should consider several misconceptions associated with the field of clinical ethics in general.
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.