Author Interviews, CMAJ, End of Life Care / 12.01.2026
Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada: Assessors Discuss Eligibility Decision Making
MedicalResearch.com Interview with:
[caption id="attachment_71968" align="alignleft" width="200"]
Dr. Thorne[/caption]
Sally Thorne RN, PhD, FAAN, FCAHS, FCAN, CM
Professor Emeritus, School of Nursing
Co-Principal Investigator with :
[caption id="attachment_71969" align="alignleft" width="133"]
Dr. Pesut[/caption]
Dr. Barbara Pesut PhD, RN
Professor in the School of Nursing
Principal Research Chair in Palliative and End of Life Care
University of British Columbia
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was legalized in Canada in June of 2016 for Canadians who were facing a reasonably foreseeable natural death and met an explicit set of eligibility criteria as determined by qualified health care providers (physicians or nurse practitioners). In 2021, the legislation was extended to include the possibility of MAiD for persons who were suffering from a ‘grievous and irremediable’ medical condition but for whom natural death was not immediately foreseeable. As assisted dying represented a significant change in available options for Canadians with terminal or chronic conditions, requiring significant practice adaptations and including numerous legal, social, ethical, moral implications, the health research community has been working in consultation with clinicians, service providers and governments to generate knowledge that ensures safe, ethical and equitable practice in this regard.
Dr. Thorne[/caption]
Sally Thorne RN, PhD, FAAN, FCAHS, FCAN, CM
Professor Emeritus, School of Nursing
Co-Principal Investigator with :
[caption id="attachment_71969" align="alignleft" width="133"]
Dr. Pesut[/caption]
Dr. Barbara Pesut PhD, RN
Professor in the School of Nursing
Principal Research Chair in Palliative and End of Life Care
University of British Columbia
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was legalized in Canada in June of 2016 for Canadians who were facing a reasonably foreseeable natural death and met an explicit set of eligibility criteria as determined by qualified health care providers (physicians or nurse practitioners). In 2021, the legislation was extended to include the possibility of MAiD for persons who were suffering from a ‘grievous and irremediable’ medical condition but for whom natural death was not immediately foreseeable. As assisted dying represented a significant change in available options for Canadians with terminal or chronic conditions, requiring significant practice adaptations and including numerous legal, social, ethical, moral implications, the health research community has been working in consultation with clinicians, service providers and governments to generate knowledge that ensures safe, ethical and equitable practice in this regard.
Sarah Windle[/caption]
Sarah Windle, MPH
PhD Student in Epidemiology
Department of Epidemiology, Biostatistics, and Occupational Health
McGill University (Montréal, Québec, Canada)
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: Concerns have been raised about the potential for increases in impaired driving following the legalization of recreational cannabis use in Canada in October 2018. Data from Statistics Canada suggest that cannabis use in the previous three months increased among adults (15 and older) from 14% before legalization in 2018 to 17% in 2019. Among those users with a driver’s license, 13% reported driving within two hours of cannabis use. While this proportion remained the same before and after legalization, this indicates that the absolute number of individuals who reported driving within two hours of use has increased following legalization (due to an increase in the number of users).
Prof.Auger[/caption]
Nathalie Auger
Professeure agrégée de clinique
École de santé publique - Département de médecine sociale et preventive
University of Montreal
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: COVID-19, caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2), has been a major public health concern. The number of infected pregnant women continues to increase. Pregnant women and infants are particularly susceptible to COVID-19 because the physiologic changes of pregnancy involve cardiovascular, respiratory, and immune changes that may alter the response to SARS-CoV-2 infection. Fetuses may be exposed to SARS-CoV-2 during critical periods of development. The nature of the association between COVID-19 and pregnancy outcomes remains unclear and meta-analyses of pregnant women with COVID-19 are lacking.
Melanie Leung[/caption]
Melanie Leung, M.D.,C.M. candidate 2021
4th-year medical student at McGill University
Division of Allergy and Clinical Immunology
Department of Pediatrics, Montreal Children’s Hospital
McGill University Health Centre, Montreal, QC, Canada
Dr. Moshe Ben-Shoshan, MD, MSc
Pediatric allergist and immunologist at the MCH (Montreal Children’s Hospital) and
Scientist at the Research Institute of the MUHC (McGill University Health Center)
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study?
Response: In Canada, up to 9% of children have at least 1 food allergy. Anaphylaxis is the most severe and potential life-threatening manifestation of food allergy. Peanuts and tree nuts are the main culprits in food-induced anaphylaxis and account for most fatal cases in North America.
Public awareness about peanut and nut anaphylaxis can help to prevent and to act promptly, in the case of anaphylactic reaction. However, the best timing for public awareness campaigns remained unknown, as no previous study looked at the potential association between specific times of the year, such as public holidays, and the incidence of peanut and tree nut anaphylaxis. Our aim was to evaluate the risk of peanut and tree nut-induced anaphylaxis on Halloween, Christmas, Easter, Diwali, Chinese New Year, and Eid al-Adha.
Data was collected from 1390 pediatric cases of peanut or nut-induced anaphylaxis across Canada (Newfoundland & Labrador, Quebec, Ontario, and British Columbia), from 2011 to 2020. 62% of children were boys and the median age was 5.4 years. We compared the average daily number of cases during each holiday and compared it to the rest of the year (i.e.: non-holiday period).
Dr. Dayan[/caption]
Natalie Dayan MD MSc FRCPC
General Internal Medicine and Obstetric Medicine,
Clinician-Scientist, Research Institute
Centre for Outcomes Research and Evaluation (CORE)
McGill University Health Centre
Montréal QC
MedicalResearch.com: What is the background for this study? What are the main findings?
Response: Infertility treatment is rising in use and has been linked with maternal and perinatal complications in pregnancy, but the extent to which it is associated with severe maternal morbidity (SMM), a composite outcome of public health importance, has been less well studied. In addition, whether the effect is due to treatment or to maternal factors is unclear.
We conducted a propensity matched cohort study in Ontario between 2006 and 2012. We included 11 546 women who had an infertility-treated pregnancy and a singleton live or stillborn delivery beyond 20 weeks. Each woman exposed to infertility treatment was then matched using a propensity score to approximately 5 untreated pregnancies (n=47 553) in order to address confounding by indication. Poisson regression revealed on overall 40% increase in the risk of a composite of SMM (one of 44 previously validated indicators using ICD-10CA codes and CCI procedure codes) (30.3 per 1000 births vs. 22.8 per 1000 births, adjusted relative risk 1.39, 95% CI 1.23-1.56). When stratified according to invasive (eg., IVF) and non-invasive treatments (eg. IUI or pharmacological ovulation induction), women who were treated with IVF had an elevated risk of having any severe maternal morbidity, and of having 3 or more SMM indicators (adjusted odds ratio 2.28, 95% CI 1.56 – 3.33), when compared with untreated women, whereas women who were treated with non-invasive treatments had no increase in these risks.



