Jennifer Gibson

Background Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) has transformed health policy and practice on death and dying. However, there has been limited research on what shaped its emergence in Canada and the beliefs and views of health leaders who hold positions of influence in the healthcare system and can guide policy and practice. The objective of this study was to examine health leaders’ perspectives on the factors that led to the emergence of MAiD and explore their attitudes about the legalization of MAiD. Methods In this qualitative study, we conducted online semi-structured interviews with health leaders from April 2021 to January 2022. Purposive and snowball sampling techniques were used to recruit health leaders who have expertise and engagement with the delivery of MAiD or palliative and end-of-life care, and who hold positions of leadership relevant to MAiD in their respective organisations. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the transcribed interviews. Results Thirty-six health leaders were interviewed. Participants identified six factors that they believed to have led to the introduction of MAiD in Canada: public advocacy and influence; judicial system and notable MAiD legal cases; political ideology and landscape; policy diffusion; healthcare system emphasis on a patient-centred care approach; and changes in societal and cultural values. Participants expressed wide-ranging attitudes on the legalization of MAiD. Some described overall agreement with the introduction of MAiD, while still raising concerns regarding vulnerability. Others held neutral attitudes and indicated that their attitudes changed on a case-by-case basis. Participants described four factors that they considered to have had influence on their attitudes: personal illness experiences; professional experiences and identity; moral and religious beliefs; and, the valence of patient autonomy and quality of life. Conclusions This study highlights the wide-ranging and complex attitudes health leaders may hold towards MAiD and identifies the convergence of multiple factors that may have contributed to the legalization of MAiD in Canada. Understanding health leaders’ attitudes and perspectives on the legalization of MAiD may inform stakeholders in other countries who are considering the legalization of assisted dying.

Health care priority setting is a reality in any health system. Because demand for health care exceeds available resources, decision makers must make tough and often tragic choices about how scarce resources will be allocated to meet varied health care needs. The "core question" of my thesis is: What guidance can various philosophical approaches offer to decision makers in institutional contexts to assist them in making priority setting decisions that are just? ;Using a bioethics methodology, which seeks to develop empirically relevant bioethical theory to guide practice, I draw on the resources of philosophical bioethics and some lessons from experience of priority setting in three health institutions to develop a more robust ethical framework for health care priority setting. ;I look at the "core question" through a number of philosophical lenses: traditional bioethics appeals to substantive moral principles, Norman Daniels and James Sabin's deliberative model of legitimate and fair priority setting , theories of democratic inclusion, and feminist ethics. I argue that each of these approaches makes a necessary but not sufficient contribution to answering the "core question" and that a composite of these approaches will provide more adequate guidance to decision makers. ;To summarize the main argument of my thesis: Justice in health care priority setting requires substantive moral and empirical criteria, but a lack of consensus on such criteria leads us to search for a fair deliberative process that provides conditions for reaching reasonable consensus on priority setting outcomes. This must be an inclusive democratic process that supports stakeholder participation in determining how to set health care priorities. Moreover, justice in health care priority setting must ultimately address the problem of institutional forms of power, which can distort the priority setting process in unreasonable and exclusionary ways, leading to unjust outcomes. ;I conclude that if substantive middle-level moral principles and empirically-based criteria were incorporated into a fair deliberative process of legitimate priority setting under conditions of democratic inclusiveness and domination-free institutional arrangements, then decision makers would be in a better position to set priorities in justice-promoting ways than by appeal to any one philosophical approach alone.

Background: Demand for organisational ethics capacity is growing in health organisations, particularly among managers. The role of clinical ethicists in, and perspective on, organisational ethics has not been well described or documented in the literature. Objective: To describe clinical ethicists’ perspectives on organisational ethics issues in their hospitals, their institutional role in relation to organisational ethics, and their perceived effectiveness in helping to address organisational ethics issues. Design and Setting: Qualitative case study involving semi-structured interviews with 18 clinical ethicists across 13 health organisations in Toronto, Canada. Results: From the clinical ethicists’ perspective, the most pressing organisational ethics issues in their organisations are: resource allocation, staff moral distress linked to the organisation’s moral climate, conflicts of interest, and clinical issues with a significant organisational dimension. Clinical ethicists were consulted in particular on issues related to staff moral distress and clinical issues with an organisational dimension. Some ethicists described being increasingly consulted on resource allocation, conflicts of interest, and other corporate decisions. Many clinical ethicists felt they lacked sufficient knowledge and understanding of organisational decision-making processes, training in organisational ethics, and access to organisational ethics tools to deal effectively with the increasing demand for organisational ethics support. Conclusion: Growing demand for organisational ethics expertise in healthcare institutions is reshaping the role of clinical ethicists. Effectiveness in organisational ethics entails a re-evaluation of clinical ethics training to include capacity building in organisational ethics and organisational decision-making processes as a complement to traditional clinical ethics education

Background: In Ontario, Canada, patients who lack decision-making capacity and have no family or friends to act as substitute decision-makers currently rely on the Office of the Public Guardian and Trustee to consent to long-term care (nursing home) placement, but they have no legal representative for other placement decisions. Objectives: We highlight the current gap in legislation for difficult transition cases involving unrepresented patients and provide a novel framework for who ought to assist with making these decisions and how these decisions ought to be made. Research design: This paper considers models advanced by Volpe and Steinman with regard to who ought to make placement decisions for unrepresented patients, as well as current ethical models for analyzing how these decisions should be made. Participants and research context: We describe an anonymized healthcare transition case to illustrate the fact that there is no legally recognized decision-maker for placement destinations other than long-term care facilities and to show how this impacts all stakeholders. Ethical considerations: The case provided is an anonymized vignette representing a typical transition case involving an unrepresented patient. Findings: As a result of a gap in provincial legislation, healthcare providers usually determine the appropriate placement destination without a clear framework to guide the process and this can cause significant moral distress. Discussion: We argue for a team decision-making approach in the short term, and a legislative change in the long-term, to respect the patient voice, evaluate benefit and risk, enhance collaboration between healthcare providers and patients, and promote social justice. We believe that our approach, which draws upon the strengths of interprofessional teams, will be of interest to all who are concerned with the welfare and ethical treatment of the patients for whom they care. Conclusions: One of the main strengths of our recommendation is that it provides all members of the healthcare team (including nurses, social workers, therapists, and others) an increased opportunity to advocate on behalf of unrepresented patients.

Background Planning for the next pandemic influenza outbreak is underway in hospitals across the world. The global SARS experience has taught us that ethical frameworks to guide decision-making may help to reduce collateral damage and increase trust and solidarity within and between health care organisations. Good pandemic planning requires reflection on values because science alone cannot tell us how to prepare for a public health crisis. Discussion In this paper, we present an ethical framework for pandemic influenza planning. The ethical framework was developed with expertise from clinical, organisational and public health ethics and validated through a stakeholder engagement process. The ethical framework includes both substantive and procedural elements for ethical pandemic influenza planning. The incorporation of ethics into pandemic planning can be helped by senior hospital administrators sponsoring its use, by having stakeholders vet the framework, and by designing or identifying decision review processes. We discuss the merits and limits of an applied ethical framework for hospital decision-making, as well as the robustness of the framework. Summary The need for reflection on the ethical issues raised by the spectre of a pandemic influenza outbreak is great. Our efforts to address the normative aspects of pandemic planning in hospitals have generated interest from other hospitals and from the governmental sector. The framework will require re-evaluation and refinement and we hope that this paper will generate feedback on how to make it even more robust.