Article Text
Abstract
The availability of willing providers of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada has been an issue since a Canadian Supreme Court decision and the subsequent passing of federal legislation, Bill C14, decriminalised MAiD in 2016. Following this legislation, Hamilton Health Sciences (HHS) in Ontario, Canada, created a team to support access to MAiD for patients. This research used a qualitative, mixed methods approach to data collection, obtaining the narratives of providers and supporters of MAiD practice at HHS. This study occurred at the outset of MAiD practice in 2016, and 1 year later, once MAiD practice was established. Our study reveals that professional identity and values, personal identity and values, experience with death and dying, and organisation context are the most significant contributors to conscientious participation for MAiD providers and supporters. The stories of study participants were used to create a model that provides a framework for values clarification around MAiD practice, and can be used to explore beliefs and reasoning around participation in MAiD across the moral spectrum. This research addresses a significant gap in the literature by advancing our understanding of factors that influence participation in taboo clinical practices. It may be applied practically to help promote reflective practice regarding complex and controversial areas of medicine, to improve interprofessional engagement in MAiD practice and promote the conditions necessary to support moral diversity in our institutions.
- consciousness
- euthanasia
- attitudes toward death
- care of the dying patient
- end-of-life
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Footnotes
Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.
Competing interests None declared.
Patient consent for publication Not required.
Ethics approval This research was approved by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board (HIREB).
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.
Request Permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information:
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Conscientious participants and the ethical dimensions of physician support for legalised voluntary assisted dying
- Why medical professionals have no moral claim to conscientious objection accommodation in liberal democracies
- A clear case for conscience in healthcare practice
- Professional and conscience - based refusals: the case of the psychiatrist 's harmful prescription
- Ethical position of medical practitioners who refuse to treat unvaccinated children
- Toward accommodating physicians ’ conscientious objections: an argument for public disclosure
- The truth behind conscientious objection in medicine
- Is it ethical for a general practitioner to claim a conscientious objection when asked to refer for abortion
- Factors contributing to practitioner choice when declining involvement in legally available care: A scoping protocol
- Conscientious objection in healthcare, referral and the military analogy