ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: What 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/SETTING: An 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. PARTICIPANTS: A 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. RESULTS: Only 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. CONCLUSIONS: Most 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.
Subject(s)
Public Opinion , Suicide, Assisted , Humans , Canada , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Adult , Suicide, Assisted/legislation & jurisprudence , Suicide, Assisted/statistics & numerical data , Aged , Surveys and Questionnaires , Young Adult , Adolescent , Treatment Refusal/statistics & numerical data , Treatment Refusal/legislation & jurisprudence , Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice , Health Services AccessibilityABSTRACT
Family disputes over the diagnosis of brain death have caused much controversy in the bioethics literature over the conceptual validity of the brain death standard. Given the tenuous status of brain death as death, it is pragmatically fruitful to reframe intractable debates about the metaphysical nature of brain death as metalinguistic disputes about its conceptual deployment. This new framework leaves the metaphysical debate open and brings into focus the social functions that are served by deploying the concept of brain death. In doing so, it highlights the epistemic injustice of medicolegal authorities that force people to uniformly accept brain death as a diagnosis of death based on normative considerations of institutional interests, such as saving hospital resources and organ supplies, rather than empirical evidence of brain death as death, which is insufficient at best and nonexistent at worst. In light of this injustice, I propose the rejection of the uniform standard of brain death in favor of a choice-based system that respects families' individualized views of death.
Subject(s)
Brain Death , Social Justice , Brain Death/diagnosis , Humans , Family , Attitude to Death , Metaphysics , Dissent and DisputesABSTRACT
Recent controversies over the mismanagement of body donors in US medical schools have raised public concerns over the ethical treatment of bodies in "anatomical gift" programs. Despite widespread moral outrage at such cases, medical students may still make seemingly inconsequential mistakes or jokes that in fact constitute acts of disrespect. This may partially be attributed to the process of desensitization in working with human remains, and indicates a further need to inculcate into medical students the ethical responsibilities of working with body donors. Donation agreement statements that lack specific information about the respectful treatment of bodies in the anatomy laboratory may serve as an additional point of concern for potential donors seeking reassurance about the future treatment of their bodies. This viewpoint draws from the anecdotal experiences of medical students to portray two scenarios of medical students' disrespectful conduct toward body donors, and constructs an account of moral respect for human remains based on respect for posthumous autonomy and respect in attitude. It then provides suggestions for US medical schools to incorporate this ethical framework into their anatomy curricula to instill respectful dispositions in its students and facilitate a more robust informed consent process for potential donors who entrust their bodies to medical students.