Cited by 14Palliative Care and End-of-Life IssuesEthics and bioethics in healthcarePalliative and Oncologic Care

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 12 of the 12 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Clinical discussion of Medical Aid-in-Dying: minimizing harms and ensuring informed choice

Brassfield, Elizabeth R., Buchbinder, Mara·2021·Patient Education and Counseling

Abstract

Objective The implementation of medical aid-in-dying (MAID) poses new challenges for clinical communication and counseling. Among these, health care providers must consider whether to initiate a discussion of MAID with eligible patients who do not directly ask about it. Norms and policies concerning this issue vary tremendously across jurisdictions where MAID is legally authorized, reflecting divergent assumptions about patients' rights to information about end-of-life options and the purpose and potential harms of clinical disclosure.Method This discussion forum essay draws on informed consent doctrine to analyze two policies concerning clinical communication about MAID: the legal prohibition against provider-initiated discussions of MAID in Victoria, Australia, and the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers (CAMAP) position that providers have an ethical and professional responsibility to inform eligible patients about MAID.Conclusions Informed consent requires that clinicians strike a balance between minimizing potential harms to patients caused by initiating discussions of MAID and the imperative to inform and counsel patients about all of their legally available medical options.Practice implications Clinicians should be aware of both the importance of communication as a tool to inform patients and the potential for clinical language to cause harm to or to unduly influence patients.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.pec.2020.08.029

Cites

12 of 12 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Arraras, 2011, Psycho-Oncology

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Brassfield, E. R., & Buchbinder, M.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Brassfield, Elizabeth R.
Venue
Patient Education and Counseling
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-03
Volume
104
Issue
3
Pages
671-674
ISSN
0738-3991 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3081959508
Cited by
14
References
12
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 1
FWCI
0.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Patient Education and Counseling (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation
  • Greenwall Foundation
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative Care and End-of-Life Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Palliative and Oncologic Care
Keywords
medical assistance in dying, clinical communication, informed consent, end-of-life care, patient counseling, Victoria, Australia
MeSH terms
Australia, Canada, Health Personnel, Humans, Informed Consent, Suicide, Assisted

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review