IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v32y2024i3p301-335..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

‘My Advocacy is Not About Me, My Advocacy is About Canadians’: A Qualitative Study of how Caregivers and Patients Influence Regulation of Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada

Author

Listed:
  • Ruthie Jeanneret
  • Eliana Close
  • Jocelyn Downie
  • Lindy Willmott
  • Ben P White

Abstract

Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was legalised federally in Canada after the Supreme Court decision in Carter v Canada (Attorney General) [2015] 1 SCR 331. The federal legislative framework for MAiD was established via Bill C-14 in 2016. Caregivers and patients were central to Carter and subsequent litigation and advocacy, which resulted in amendments to the law via Bill C-7 in 2021. Research has primarily focused on the impacts of regulation on caregivers and patients. This qualitative study investigates how caregivers and patients influence law reform and the operation of MAiD practice in Canada (ie, behave as ‘regulatory actors’), using Black’s definition of regulation. We found that caregivers and patients performed sustained, focused, and intentional actions that influenced law reform and the operation of MAiD in practice. Caregivers and patients are not passive objects of Canadian MAiD regulation, and their role in influencing regulation (eg, law reform and MAiD practice) should be supported where this is desired by the person. However, recognising the burdens of engaging in regulatory action to address barriers to accessing MAiD or to quality care, and MAiD system gaps, other regulatory actors (eg, governments) should minimise this burden, particularly where a person engages in regulatory action reluctantly.

Suggested Citation

  • Ruthie Jeanneret & Eliana Close & Jocelyn Downie & Lindy Willmott & Ben P White, 2024. "‘My Advocacy is Not About Me, My Advocacy is About Canadians’: A Qualitative Study of how Caregivers and Patients Influence Regulation of Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 32(3), pages 301-335.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:32:y:2024:i:3:p:301-335.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwae012
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:32:y:2024:i:3:p:301-335.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.