Search

Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) was legalized in Canada in 2016. While it has generated significant academic interest, the experiences of healthcare workers other than physicians remain understudied. This paper reports on a qualitative study of interprofessional Healthcare Providers (HCPs) involved in the provision of MAiD in order to: (1) characterize providers' views about the care they offer in general; (2) examine whether or not they consider MAiD a form of care; and (3) explore their reasons for viewing or not viewing MAiD as care. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with ten nurses, eight social workers, and three pharmacists with firsthand experience delivering MAiD at an academic hospital in Toronto, Canada. The study was approved by the hospital's REB. Written informed consent was obtained prior to participation. Codebook thematic analysis and template analysis generated four themes: (1) care as advocacy, (2) care as easing suffering, (3) care as psychosocial, and (4) care as relational. Every participant viewed MAiD as a form of care and drew on these four themes to authenticate MAiD as care. Participants consider MAiD a form of care for patients, families, other healthcare workers, and even themselves. In alternating and composite fashion, they describe MAiD in terms of autonomy, easing suffering, and a kind death for the dying (and those entrusted with their care)—a complex choreography of social discourses and moral logics that refuse to settle into a simple dichotomy of "choice versus care." Participants depict MAiD in many of the same terms and imagery they use to describe the care they offer in general. In light of ongoing social controversies surrounding MAiD, HCPs utilize a range of logics strategically to repel negative attention and enable their participation in what they see as a caring end for their patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Drawing on feminist care ethics and political theory (Engster and Hamington, 2015; Held, 2006; Noddings, 2015; Tronto, 2013), this paper examines how educators working in private (Ontario) and public (Denmark) childcare systems think about and practice care. Through interviews with pedagogues (Denmark) and early childhood educators (Ontario), linkages between the public/private positioning of care and the care experiences of educators are explored. The findings reveal differences in how educators think about and practice care in public and private systems. At the same time, notable similarities emerged in how educators resisted neoliberal system requirements. The findings illustrate the complexities of connecting good care practices to the systemic level without diminishing the importance of individual human agency in experiencing/practicing good care in Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). Findings suggest that good care and commodification are both theoretically and practically at odds with each other, though neither absolutely precludes the other. Implications for policy makers, particularly relevant in the contemporary COVID context, are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]