In 2016, Canada amended the federal Criminal Code to legalize medical assistance in dying (MAiD). While there is a federal monitoring system for MAiD, oversight is considered a provincial/territorial responsibility. Some provinces have established MAiD-specific oversight mechanisms, while others have not, fuelling debates about optimal regulation. This article reports on qualitative research about how key stakeholders perceive oversight and its role in MAiD regulation. The research focused on three Canadian provinces with different approaches to oversight (British Columbia, Ontario, and Nova Scotia). It involved 68 interviews with two key groups: MAiD assessors and providers (physicians and nurse practitioners who provide MAiD); and ‘organizational actors’ working in governments, regulatory bodies, professional organizations, and healthcare institutions. Despite different oversight models, participants had a broad preference for their province’s model. Participants had diverse views about the adequacy of oversight, with some calling for deeper case assessment. Additional improvements included embedding mechanisms for quality improvement and alleviating the burden of oversight on practitioners. Participants also emphasized that MAiD was part of medical practice, and other mechanisms beyond MAiD-specific oversight played a role in accountability. This study can inform discussions about optimal models of MAiD oversight in Canada and in other countries considering assisted dying laws.

Law and policy concerning personal decision-making increasingly recognizes a role for support to enable greater autonomy and legal recognition for adults whose decision-making ability may be limited. Support for decision making (SFDM) is embedded in England and Wales under the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA). It has also gained traction internationally through the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), to which the UK is a signatory. However, these two legal reference points diverge in their understanding of SFDM, which presents challenges for putting it into practice. A pragmatic review methodology identified 40 resources containing SFDM guidance, providing insight into its implementation and conceptualization in England. An analysis indicates the need for authoritative guidance that provides more multifaceted advice, recognizing key variables including: the nature of the decision, source of decision-making difficulties, and the relationship of the supporter. Gaps in guidance provision are also identified for decision-makers, third parties, and the mental health context. The resources largely conceptualize SFDM as a means to enable mental capacity. However, recent developments propose a CRPD-aligned approach that includes SFDM in the context of substituted decisions. This generates a dualistic model of SFDM in England, raising new questions in this area.

This article explores the right of caregivers to wear religious dress in Europe, focusing on four countries: France, Belgium, the UK, and the Netherlands. It highlights the varying approaches to secularism, with stricter scrutiny on prohibitions in the UK and the Netherlands, while France and Belgium lean towards a form of outward neutrality that prohibits religious symbols, particularly in public services. While prohibitions on religious dress for caregivers might aim to protect the rights to equal treatment of patients, it raises concerns about its compatibility with equality law. Despite a shared European human rights framework, these policies result in inconsistent legal outcomes across countries, challenging the principles of non-discrimination and religious freedom. The article also questions the justification of blanket bans under health and safety standards, emphasizing the need for reasonable accommodation. Furthermore, it stresses that any restrictions on religious dress that are in place to protect the rights and freedoms of others should be based on objective, evidence-based reasoning. In this sense, patients' perceptions of religious symbols should not be generalized, especially considering the rights of minoritized or religious patients.

The emergence of FemTech technologies promises to revolutionize women’s health and reproductive rights but conceals an insidious trap of surveillance and control in the hands of private and state actors. This article examines the extent to which FemTech technologies, under the guise of empowerment, enable private actors to play a leading role in managing reproductive rights, replacing largely inactive States in this crucial function. The analysis shows how private FemTech companies are becoming critical players in implementing and defending these rights, often in response to the inaction or inadequacies of States. The article approaches the FemTech phenomenon from several angles, including the promises of empowerment, concerns about surveillance and control, and the ambivalent roles of private actors as implementers and defenders of reproductive rights. This structure makes it possible to offer a critical analysis of the legal, societal, and ethical implications of FemTech, highlighting the tensions between the promises of empowerment and the risks of surveillance and control.