Note: This opinion piece addresses mental illness and medical assistance in dying. Reader discretion is advised. For support, call or text Canada’s Suicide Crisis Helpline at 9-8-8.
Canada’s Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) legislation was introduced in 2016, allowing eligible individuals to seek medical assistance to voluntarily end their lives under legislated safeguards.
MAiD is available to adults with a grievous and incurable medical condition who provide informed consent and meet specific eligibility criteria, including enduring unbearable suffering and experiencing an advanced state of irreversible decline of capability. (Read more about what MAiD is.)
Since March 2021, MAiD has followed a two-track system based on whether a person’s natural death is “reasonably foreseeable,” meaning that death is expected within an unspecified but not remote timeframe due to their medical circumstances.
Those whose natural death is reasonably foreseeable follow Track 1, while others fall under Track 2, which involves additional safeguards. Notably, individuals whose sole underlying condition is a mental illness are ineligible for MAiD – a restriction that was set to lift in 2023 but subsequently extended to 2024 and then to March 2027. — The editors
Is MAiD a proper solution to serious mental illness? What are the policy implications of entrenching this in law as a fully funded medical service? (In Canada, in almost all cases, MAiD involves ending a patient’s life through a physician’s or nurse practitioner’s lethal injection.)
These are complex questions. Unfortunately, society has not engaged in an honest, serious debate about them. Instead, over the past several years, we have seen relentless advocacy-driven expansion of MAiD, framed as a rights issue, without careful discussion of the implications of extending it beyond the end-of-life context, and how this affects people differently based on the nature of their suffering.
Before considering further expansion of MAiD to mental illness, we must recognize how MAiD already puts people with disabilities at risk of premature death, particularly when they also experience ableism, ageism, sexism and other forms of marginalization.
MAID was first legalized as an exceptional procedure for people with an irremediable medical condition and irreversible decline of capability, and intolerable suffering, who were approaching their natural death. It remains an exemption to the Criminal Code’s prohibitions against homicide and aiding suicide. The law was designed to guard against premature death and suicide and the devaluation of the lives of the elderly, ill or disabled.
Yet from the outset, advocates pushed for expansion, interpreting the law flexibly and challenging the end-of-life safeguard in court. In 2019, a single Quebec Superior Court judge ruled that this safeguard violated the Charter rights of patients who were not approaching their death. Despite opposition from several legal experts and most Canadian disability organizations, the government failed to appeal the decision.
In 2021, Parliament expanded MAiD outside the end-of-life context, making it available to disabled individuals who were not dying. However, it suspended the introduction of MAiD for the sole reason of mental illness. This suspension was extended in 2023 for one year, and again in 2024 for another three years, after testimony from psychiatric experts and provincial ministries of health revealed that the health-care system was not ready. These hearings exposed how some advocates, including some within the mental-health care community, have embraced a rhetoric of constitutional rights, despite serious legal doubts about whether a broad constitutional right to MAiD exists under the Charter.
The claim that denying MAiD for mental illness is discriminatory ignores critical evidence. Providing psychiatric euthanasia for mental illness would itself be the ultimate discrimination, depriving people with mental illness, who often lack adequate medical care and social support, of equal protection against suicide and exposing them to avoidable death under false pretenses.
Canadians have been assured MAiD is for “irremediable” medical conditions – ones that will not improve. But unlike diseases with better understood causes, mental illnesses often follow uncertain courses. Research shows that assessors attempting to determine whether a mental illness is irremediable would be wrong more than half the time. Even those pushing for psychiatric euthanasia acknowledge that irremediability in mental illness cannot be predicted. Instead, they argue this should be an ethical decision on a case-by-case basis – effectively replacing the safeguard of a predictable prognosis with the subjective judgement of individual assessors.
Research shows that individuals seeking psychiatric euthanasia overlap with those who are suicidal when mentally ill. Despite claims that assessors are trained to distinguish suicidality from those requesting psychiatric euthanasia, evidence fails to support that this distinction can be made. Instead, this training falsely reassures assessors that if a patient is not impulsive and is requesting a MAiD assessment instead of acting on their own, they are not suicidal. In truth, most suicides in North America are not impulsive.
This issue is not about undermining the competence of patients with mental illness. It is about the absence of evidence that we can reliably distinguish suicidality or predict the irremediability of psychiatric conditions. To be blunt, despite their claims otherwise, MAiD assessors lack the ability to make these determinations.
Worse, the most marginalized Canadians are at risk of seeking MAiD not for an “irremediable” illness, but as an escape from life suffering fuelled by social marginalization. Evidence from Belgium and the Netherlands, two of four countries providing psychiatric euthanasia, shows that twice as many women as men receive MAID for mental illness, while the gender split for terminal conditions is equal. Alarmingly, this finding has been dismissed by Canadian expansion advocates, including the chair of the Federal Expert Panel on MAID for Mental Illness, who publicly stated that this gender gap “doesn’t concern” them.
There is mounting evidence that the 2021 expansion of MAiD outside the context of an approaching natural death has already put marginalized Canadians at disproportionate risk of premature death. Reports from the Ontario Coroner’s MAiD Death Review Panel and Health Canada confirm what disability advocates warned policymakers about. The Ontario Chief Coroner concluded that individuals whose deaths were Track 2 (not approaching natural death) were much more likely to live in neighbourhoods with higher levels of residential instability, material deprivation and dependency than those in Track 1 (approaching natural death).
When the government offers MAiD to people who are not dying, a disproportionate number of marginalized Canadians are tempted to opt for MAiD. Their reason? Not to relieve unresolvable suffering from illness, but to escape suffering caused by a lack of support and inadequate health care. Nearly half of Canadians who died by MAiD under Track 2 in 2023 cite both loneliness and a sense of being a burden on others as major sources of their suffering. The reports also document what media investigations and recent court cases have revealed: disturbing instances where MAiD assessors and providers without strong expertise in mental health or complex disease approved or provided MAID to people struggling with both disability and mental illness.
Canadians should ask whether it is appropriate for their government to offer easier access to euthanasia than to health care and support – particularly for those whose suffering stems from social distress and mental illness. Provincial and federal governments should focus on ensuring access to adequate and timely support services that enable people to live with dignity. Rather than creating a system that entices vulnerable individuals to consider ending their lives due to social suffering, we should be striving to provide them with the resources they need to cope and thrive.
Read an argument for why MAiD should be accessible to people solely with mental illness.
Trudo Lemmens is a professor and Scholl Chair in Health Law and Policy at the Faculty of Law and the Dalla Lana School of Public Health at the University of Toronto. Lemmens is currently a member of the Chief Coroner of Ontario MAID Death Review Panel.
K. Sonu Gaind is a professor of psychiatry at the Temerty Faculty of Medicine at the University of Toronto and chief of psychiatry at Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre. Previously, he was also physician chair of the Humber River Hospital MAiD team.
Both Lemmens and Gaind were expert witness for the Federal Attorney General in the Truchon and Lamb cases, and were both members of the Council of Canadian Academies Expert Panel on Medical Assistance in Dying. They are co-editors, with Ramona Coelho, of a recently published volume Unravelling MAiD in Canada: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide as Medical Care.
Most Popular
At a Loss for Words
Did Alzheimer’s kill crime novelist Agatha Christie? Read More
What’s in Your Backpack?
See what U of T students rely on to get through their day Read More
Learning to Think –
or Learning to Prompt?
As AI reshapes what’s possible, 10 U of T students reflect on what university is for Read More
No Responses to “ The Hidden Risks of Expanding Medical Assistance in Dying ”
My husband was terminally ill with cancer. In the end, he chose MAiD. I fully supported his decision. To this day, I believe he was courageous.
The issue of using someone's socio-economic situation to give them access to MAiD is an ethical question more than a medical one. This issue needs more attention and analysis. I, for one, would like to see baby boomers who are mentally competent be given the opportunity to indicate in their will under what circumstances they would like MAID.
I had two parents who ended up in long-term care facilities. In my opinion, they did not have any quality of life once they entered these places. Both had dementia, and I find it hard to believe either would have wanted to live this way.
The authors seem to forget that you only qualify for MAID if you are suffering an irremediable physical or mental condttion that does not include loneliness, poverty, access to proper medical or palliative care etc. Why should someone who is truly suffering and who qualifies for the procedure be deprived of MAiD? Why should they be forced to continue suffering? As for the irremediable aspect of mental illness, the failure of the medical profession to address mental illness shouldn't condemn those suffering from it to have to continue on. If the problem has gone on long enough -- with or without attempted suicides -- the sufferer should have access to the procedure.
Thank you for highlighting the vulnerable and impoverished in shining a light on track 2. We can do better than assist in suicidal longings. We must bring dignity and provide for the real needs that cause despair. Our children are watching whether we protect these values.
For track 2, you no longer require a reasonably foreseeable death to be eligible for MAiD. Beginning in March 2027, those having "only" a mental illness could qualify. I say "only" a mental illness, but I do want to better understand the intolerable suffering that may come in the form of irremediable sadness, loneliness and social isolation. In the meantime, I am concerned that our federal government promotes MAiD.
I fully understand and respect the need to advocate for and protect vulnerable individuals and groups. But I hope that MAiD will be expanded to enable people to request it in advance under certain conditions. I would like to face my future knowing that I can plan my own death -- if, for example, I have a stroke or a condition in which my cognitive ability is affected, if I can no longer be independent or live on my own with minimal help, or if long-term care is suggested. I'd like my personal autonomy to be respected so that, under conditions determined by me, MAiD could be administered.
I also believe that we need to respect those with mental illness who seek MAiD. If they have been living a difficult life with ongoing suffering, they shouldn't be expected to wait for the mental health research or services to catch up. This could lead to additional years of suffering.
I think what often gets lost in these debates are the voices of the people who would actually be requesting MAiD. I’m someone who has lived for years with severe, treatment-resistant mental illness. I’ve tried countless medications, therapies, hospitalizations, even neuromodulation treatments — and still I wake up every day to unbearable suffering.
This isn’t about a temporary crisis or avoiding discomfort. It’s about enduring constant torment with no meaningful relief and no realistic prospect of recovery. For people like me, forcing us to keep going "just in case" another treatment works feels cruel. It ignores the reality that we’ve already tried, for years, to get better.
MAiD for mental illness isn’t about giving up too soon. It’s about acknowledging that psychiatric pain can be just as unrelenting, disabling and intolerable as physical illness — and that people living it deserve the same dignity and autonomy in deciding when enough is enough.
If I find out I have dementia, I want the option of writing an advanced directive/request. This was recommended by the all-party committee that put forward the original legislation. I don't understand why it is not better to have that option than not have it!
Thank you for this.
Requesting direct access to MAID is similar to the 1969 movement for the right to abortion: "my body, my choice." Keeping alive those who suffer from endless mental issues or physical challenges and pain when they would prefer to to leave the planet is about control by the government and religion. The money used to keep these people unwillingly alive could instead be used to provide children with timely surgery, offer better education, give impoverished families sufficient food, provide more accessible healthcare and help the environment. I could go on.
I am someone who has suffered from depression, PTSD, and generalized anxiety disorder for many years.
**Content warning for suicidal ideation**
A common suicidal ideation I experience is seeking MAiD. When I am thinking about this, it is very rational. My illnesses are intolerable, I am a burden on my family. I have access to adequate care, I am not in a low socioeconomic bracket, I have a very loving family I am close with.
However, when I have my better days, I know that I do not want to end my life, through MAiD or otherwise. I have told my husband to never, even if I appear to desire it later, ever let me apply for MAiD.
A genuine question: How can I be protected in a country where MAiD for those with mental health illnesses is available?
A very interesting discussion about a complex topic. I sometimes wonder if people are kept alive too long with too many meds when they are unable to feed, speak or go to the toilet themselves and are very advanced in age. I visited a nursing home recently where many of the residents seemed unaware of where they were. Were they enjoying their lives? I don't know the answer to this complex situation.
This article is an opinion piece, and there are many who would disagree with the authors. Is the university lending its imprimatur to their views? Publishing the article without clearly labelling it as an opinion piece certainly gives that impression. As does the failure to provide equal space for opposing views. I am disappointed in my alma mater.
@Yawar
Thank you for your comment. In the first sentence, we have now clearly labelled the article as an opinion piece.
We did give equal time to the other side! At the end of this article, we included a link to an opinion piece by Dr. Justine Dembo, arguing in favour of extending eligibility for MAiD to people solely with mental illness.
One unaddressed issue is that of dementia, which erroneously gets lumped in with mental illness. Those suffering from irreversible dementia are doomed to a non-life ahead of them, but in an advanced stage are unable to consent to MAiD. I've seen this firsthand with my father. He would never want to be in his current state. But despite having prepared an advance directive (prepared should the law change), he's unable to consent to MAiD and so must continue in his ever-declining physical and mental state. Death At the very least, can we not separate dementia from mental illness? And yes, let's get everyone the absolute best care we can. But at this time, there are some conditions that medical science (which is truly miraculous) still cannot solve.
MAiD is an aberration. No one asked Canadians. This should have been debated for several years, both in and out of Parliament. Look how long we took to decide on a flag!
There should be no MAiD. But at this point, I don't see a way back. At the very least, we need to call it what it is: "assisted suicide" or "euthanasia." And we need to explain to people that there is the possibility of mistakes and further suffering.
Some people unfortunately suffer terribly at the end of their life. Their suffering gets prolonged by medicine, sometimes for years in a hospital bed.
It gives me peace of mind to know that I will not be one of them. I am a strong supporter of MAiD. I alone will decide, after careful consideration, when it is time to go. Nobody else can make that decision for me, unless I get Alzheimer's. For that, we need an advance directive. I want to give permission now to give me a merciful death.