MAiD and Mental Illness: Canada's Unfinished Debate

"When Bill C-14 came into force in 2016, MAiD was limited to persons with grave and irremediable medical conditions whose natural death was "reasonably foreseeable." In practice, the law often meant that persons whose suffering was only from psychiatric disease were excluded."

"While federal politicians continue to wrestle with the implications of these expanded guidelines, the controversy generated can be heard across the political spectrum and has even been fueled by erroneous information about MAiD coming from the Trump administration. Still, the heaviest burden in assessing MAiD candidates dealing with mental illness is with the mental health professionals charged with assessing how candidates qualify."

MAiD eligibility in Canada has changed quickly, moving from a requirement of reasonably foreseeable natural death to expanded pathways after Truchon v. Canada. Bill C-7 created two tracks: one for people whose death is anticipated and another for people whose death is not predicted but who experience a grievous and irremediable medical condition and voluntarily request MAiD without external pressure. The expanded guidelines raise difficult questions, especially for candidates with mental illness. Mental suffering is often linked to social isolation, trauma, poverty, and hopelessness. Determining irremediable suffering cannot rely only on diagnosis or symptom severity, and the assessment burden falls heavily on mental health professionals.

Read at Psychology Today