In XXXX, there is an ongoing socio-political debate regarding the legalization of medical assistance in dying (MAiD). This study aimed to evaluate XXXX general practitioners’ (GPs) perceptions and attitudes of home-based end-of-life care and their potential involvement in MAiD should it become legalized.A cross-sectional quantitative survey was conducted using a questionnaire developed from previously published qualitative studies. Participants included private practice GPs—both established and locum physicians—regardless of whether they had completed their doctoral thesis.This study provides new quantitative evidence regarding GPs’ attitudes toward MAiD, complementing existing qualitative findings and broadening understanding of physicians’ perspectives on this ethically complex issue.A total of 119 completed questionnaires were analyzed between March and May 2025. Among respondents, 61% were women and 56% were aged 30–40 years. Home-based end-of-life care was relatively infrequent, 50% of physicians managing one to two patients per year and 25% reported feeling comfortable with such care. The most reported concerns were insufficient time for patient support (61%) and professional isolation (66%). If MAiD were legalized, 49% of GPs stated they would consider performing the procedure. The most important conditions cited were the absence of external pressure on patients (94%) and adequate information regarding palliative care options (88%). Physicians were more favorable toward MAiD in cases involving refractory pain (81%), amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (87%), or other neurodegenerative diseases (81%). If MAiD were legalized in XXXXX, further studies will be required to explore GPs’ perceptions of its impact on their clinical practice and professional identity.Home-based end-of-life care provided by GPs was rare and demanding, requiring significant time commitment and personal involvement. Many physicians reported feelings of isolation and difficulties accessing external resources such as home hospitalization services or palliative care teams. Existing legislation appeared inadequate for certain cases, particularly those involving refractory suffering in patients without a short-term terminal prognosis.While a majority of GPs supported the legalization of MAiD, fewer expressed willingness to personally perform the act. Each end-of-life situation warrants an individualized ethical and clinical approach, supported by multidisciplinary collaboration and appropriate legislative frameworks.