Abstract
Background The Canadian public has repeatedly expressed its desire for advance requests for Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) after dementia diagnosis, yet MAiD practitioners’ willingness to accede to such advance requests is unknown. This study explores the extent and nature of any gap between the public’s desire for, and practitioners’ willingness to provide MAiD, and identifies policies to ameliorate such a gap.
Methods Two complementary mixed-method surveys gathered data from convenience samples of 83 Canadian adults and 103 MAiD practitioners. The public survey asked participants which of five specific circumstances commonly encountered in dementia they would include in their advance requests. The practitioner survey queried the validation level participants would require before providing MAiD in each specific circumstance. Participants’ reasons were probed using thematic analysis of open-ended questions.
Results On average, 77% of public participants indicated they definitely or probably would include each of the five specific circumstances in their advance requests for MAiD. As validation level decreased from patient consent to patient assent, family assent, or advance request alone, the magnitude of the gap between the public’s desire and practitioners’ willingness increased. The practitioners’ qualitative data contained many practical insights from which emerged seven policy recommendations to ameliorate this gap and increase the likelihood of honouring patient requests.
Interpretation The study provides evidence of a gap between public desire for, and practitioner willingness to provide MAiD in dementia. The policy recommendations are relevant to consideration of legislation for advance requests for MAiD.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
This study was approved by the University of British Columbia Research Ethics Board (H20-02437).
All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
