ReviewCureus2026
Medical Aid in Dying in New York: Clinical, Ethical, and Cardiovascular Considerations Under Assembly Bill A136.
Review in Cureus, 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
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
New York Assembly Bill A136, scheduled to take effect in August 2026, establishes a statutory framework for medical aid in dying (MAID) for eligible patients with terminal illness. This review synthesizes evidence from established U.S. MAID jurisdictions, including Oregon, Washington, California, Colorado, Vermont, and Montana, with emphasis on clinical implementation, ethical considerations, and cardiology-specific challenges. Although MAID legislation has primarily been discussed in oncology and palliative medicine, its implications for patients with advanced cardiovascular disease have received comparatively less attention in the literature. Heart failure is often characterized by fluctuating disease trajectories, recurrent hospitalizations, prognostic uncertainty, and complex decisions involving advanced therapies and implantable cardiac devices, all of which may complicate assessment of eligibility under the law. This narrative review examines the major provisions of A136. It also discusses their relevance to cardiovascular practice, with particular attention to prognostication, informed consent, palliative care integration, clinician responsibilities, and ethical distinctions between MAID and withdrawal of life-sustaining therapies. The review also considers how social determinants of health and disparities in cardiovascular care may influence patient experiences, symptom burden, and end-of-life decision-making. As MAID becomes integrated into clinical practice in New York, cardiologists and multidisciplinary care teams will need to balance legal requirements with careful communication, individualized patient care, and established principles of cardiovascular palliative medicine.
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.