Search

Introduction: Assisted dying (AD) has been legalised in a small but growing number of jurisdictions globally, including Canada and Australia. Early research in both countries demonstrates that, in response to access barriers, patients and caregivers take action to influence their individual experience of AD, as well as AD systems more widely. This study analyses how patients and caregivers suggest other decision‐makers in AD systems should address identified issues. Methods: We conducted semistructured, qualitative interviews with patients and caregivers seeking AD in Victoria (Australia) and three Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Ontario and Nova Scotia). Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis and codebook template analysis. Results: Sixty interviews were conducted with 67 participants (65 caregivers, 2 patients). In Victoria, this involved 28 interviews with 33 participants (32 caregivers, 1 patient) about 28 patient experiences. In Canada, this involved 32 interviews with 34 participants (33 caregivers, 1 patient) about 33 patient experiences. We generated six themes, corresponding to six overarching suggestions by patients and caregivers to address identified system issues: (1) improved content and dissemination of information about AD; (2) proactively develop policies and procedures about AD provision; (3) address institutional objection via top‐down action; (4) proactively develop grief resources and peer support mechanisms; (5) amend laws to address legal barriers; and (6) engage with and act on patient and caregiver feedback about experiences. Conclusion: AD systems should monitor and respond to suggestions from patients and caregivers with firsthand experience of AD systems, who are uniquely placed to identify issues and suggestions for improvement. To date, Canada has responded comparatively well to address identified issues, whereas the Victorian government has signalled there are no plans to amend laws to address identified access barriers. This may result in patients and caregivers continuing to take on the burdens of acting to address identified issues. Patient or Public Contribution: Patients and caregivers are central to this research. We interviewed patients and caregivers about their experiences of AD, and the article focuses on their suggestions for addressing identified barriers within AD systems. Patient interest groups in Australia and Canada also supported our recruitment process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In 2016, Canada joined the growing number of jurisdictions to legalize medical assistance in dying (MAiD), when the Supreme Court of Canada's decision in Carter v Canada took effect and the Canadian Parliament passed Bill C-14. Five years later, Bill C-7 introduced several significant amendments. These included removing the 'reasonably foreseeable natural death' requirement (an aspect that was widely debated) and introducing the final consent waiver. Since Bill C-7 is so new, very little research has investigated its operation in practice. Objectives: This study investigates the experiences of MAiD assessors and providers regarding the Bill C-7 amendments. It explores implications for understanding and improving regulatory reform and implementation. Design: Qualitative thematic analysis of semi-structured interviews. Methods: In all, 32 MAiD assessors and providers (25 physicians and 7 nurse practitioners) from British Columbia (n = 10), Ontario (n = 15) and Nova Scotia (n = 7) were interviewed. Results: The analysis resulted in five themes: (1) removing barriers to MAiD access; (2) navigating regulatory and systems recalibration; (3) recognizing workload burdens; (4) determining individual ethical boundaries of practice and (5) grappling with ethical tensions arising from broader health system challenges. Conclusion: This is one of the first studies to investigate physicians' and nurse practitioners' experiences of the impact of Bill C-7 after the legislation was passed. Bill C-7 addressed key problems under Bill C-14, including the two witnesses requirement and the 10-day waiting period. However, it also introduced new complexities as practitioners decided how to approach cases involving a non-reasonably foreseeable natural death (and contemplated the advent of MAiD for persons with a mental disorder as a sole underlying condition). This study highlights the importance of involving practitioners in advance of legislative changes. It also emphasizes how the regulation of MAiD involves a range of organizations, which requires strong leadership and coordination from the government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]