RESEARCH UPDATE 26’: The Fruits of Our Labour Published
Written by Midori Matthew
We’re happy to share that the efforts of our research have been published in two journals!
The findings of our first project regarding the bioethical distinction between ‘killing’ versus ‘allowing to die’ in the scope of medical assistance in dying and withdrawing life-sustaining treatment (WLT) were published in BMC Medical Ethics in 2025. This paper uses a qualitative-descriptive approach to explore how – and if – physicians conceive of this philosophical distinction in their own respective end-of-life practices. Our analysis derived 3 core findings: 1) most physicians tend to treat MAiD as morally equivalent to WLT despite some differences between the practices, 2) both physicians who participate in MAiD and abstain from involvement showed distaste in the use of the term ‘killing’, and 3) the presence of a divide between bioethical debates and practice; namely, that the former is not sufficiently informed by the latter. Through our discussion, we aimed to provide insights that assist with developing bioethical insights that are both rooted in and relevant to bedside medical practice.
You can read more about it here (it’s open access!): https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1186/s12910-025-01176-7.pdf
Our second paper, accepted and forthcoming in Palliative Medicine Reports, is about the role of ‘intention’ in medical assistance in dying as it relates to its potential integration with palliative care. As is already a familiar subject to many, there have been ample societal debates surrounding MAiD’s role in relation to broader more widely accepted palliative care procedures, such as palliative sedation or the withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment. While different regions and different hospitals implement different policies surrounding the departmental provisions of MAiD, there is no consensus. This paper sought to glean insights about the integration or separation of MAiD from palliative care from the perspectives of palliative care physicians. Our results showed 4 themes: 1) ethical elements of MAiD determining potential inclusion or exclusion within palliative care, 2) integration versus separation of MAiD and palliative care, 3) MAiD as a form of patient-centred care provision, and 4) potential negative implications of MAiD’s integration within palliative care. Overall, participants acknowledged that while MAiD should not necessarily be recognized as a component of palliative care, strong attention should be given toward enhancing coordination of provisions even if they do not merge. Demonstrating a wide array of lived experience medical perspectives alongside diverse moral rationales, our findings centred the importance of nuanced professional environments to support palliative clinicians of both perspectives as they navigate MAiD’s influence and impact over their field. We are anticipating that this article should be publicly available by early February 2026.