Matthew Midori, Bonner Kieran, Stumpf Andrew
Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.
Department of Sociology and Legal Studies, St. Jerome's University, Waterloo, ON, Canada.
BMC Med Ethics. 2025 Feb 1;26(1):19. doi: 10.1186/s12910-025-01176-7.
Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was legalized in Canada following the Carter v. Canada ruling of 2015. In spite of legalization, the ethics of MAiD remain contentious. The bioethical literature has attempted to differentiate MAiD from withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (WLT) in an effort to examine the nature of the moral difference between the two. However, this research has often neglected the firsthand experiences of the clinicians involved in these procedures. By asking physicians if they perceive the major bioethical accounts as clinically useful, we seek to distinguish between aspects of the contemporary bioethical landscape which are useful at the bedside and those which are divorced from the realities faced by clinicians.
We applied a qualitative descriptive approach to explore physicians' experiences and bioethical distinctions in providing MAiD and WLT.
Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 21 physicians, and the transcripts were thematically analyzed to identify common patterns and divergences in their perspectives. Three core themes were found: (1) consensus on MAiD's moral equivalence with WLT despite differences between the practice, (2) discord regarding the use of the term 'killing', and (3) disjuncture between bioethical debates and practice. Theme 1 comprised of three sub-themes: (1.1) no moral difference between MAiD and WLT, (1.2) physician versus underlying medical condition as cause of death, and (1.3) relief of suffering.
In order to have practical utility for clinical practice, it is essential for bioethicists to engage in dialogue with patients and their medical providers pursuing MAiD or WLT. Theoretical debates that are divorced from the realities of terminal illness do not assist physicians with navigating the ethical terrain of ending a patient's life. This research captures meaningful accounts regarding MAiD and WLT that is rooted in the lived experience of the providers of these services in order for bioethical debates to have substantive impact in clinical practice and in legislation surrounding future health policies.
2015年“卡特诉加拿大”案裁决后,加拿大的医疗协助死亡(MAiD)合法化。尽管已合法化,但MAiD的伦理问题仍存在争议。生物伦理文献试图区分MAiD与撤销维持生命治疗(WLT),以审视两者之间道德差异的本质。然而,这项研究常常忽视了参与这些程序的临床医生的第一手经验。通过询问医生他们是否认为主要的生物伦理观点在临床上有用,我们试图区分当代生物伦理领域中对床边实践有用的方面和那些与临床医生所面临的现实脱节的方面。
我们采用定性描述方法来探索医生在提供MAiD和WLT方面的经验以及生物伦理差异。
对21名医生进行了半结构化访谈,并对访谈记录进行了主题分析,以确定他们观点中的共同模式和分歧。发现了三个核心主题:(1)尽管实践存在差异,但对于MAiD与WLT在道德上的等同性达成共识;(2)在使用“杀人”一词方面存在分歧;(3)生物伦理辩论与实践之间的脱节。主题1包括三个子主题:(1.1)MAiD与WLT之间没有道德差异;(1.2)医生与潜在疾病作为死亡原因;(1.3)减轻痛苦。
为了在临床实践中具有实际效用,生物伦理学家与寻求MAiD或WLT的患者及其医疗提供者进行对话至关重要。脱离绝症现实的理论辩论无助于医生在结束患者生命的伦理领域中导航。这项研究捕捉了关于MAiD和WLT的有意义的描述,这些描述植根于这些服务提供者的实际经验,以便生物伦理辩论能够在临床实践和围绕未来卫生政策的立法中产生实质性影响。