Time to Take Another Serious Look at Conscientious Objection

Contemplating the Impacts of Canadian Healthcare Institutions That Refuse to Provide Medical Assistance in Dying: A Framework-Based Discussion of Potential Health Access Implications

INTRODUCTION

Following the historic Canadian legislation on medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in 2016, many implementation challenges and ethical quandaries have formed the focus of further scholarly investigation and policy revisions. Of these, conscientious objections held by some healthcare institutions have involved relatively less scrutiny, despite indicating possible hurdles to the universal availability of MAiD services in Canada.

METHODS

In this paper, we contemplate potential accessibility concerns that pertain specifically to service access, with the hope to trigger further systematic research and policy analysis on this frequently overlooked aspect of MAiD implementation. We organize our discussion using two important health access frameworks: Levesque and colleagues' Conceptual Framework for Access to Health and the Provisional Framework for MAiD System Information Needs (Canadian Institute for Health Information).

RESULTS

Our discussion is organized along five framework dimensions through which institutional non-participation may generate or exacerbate inequities in MAiD utilization. Considerable overlaps are revealed across framework domains, indicating the complexity of the problem and the need for further investigation.

CONCLUSION

Conscientious dissensions on the part of healthcare institutions form a likely barrier to ethical, equitable, and patient-oriented MAiD service provision. Comprehensive, systematic evidence is urgently needed to understand the nature and scope of resulting impacts. We urge Canadian healthcare professionals, policymakers, ethicists, and legislators to attend to this crucial issue in future research and in policy discussions.