Opinion

System reform matters. But MAiD eligibility should not depend on it

In June, Parliament’s Special Joint Committee on MAiD recommended that Canada indefinitely exclude people whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. Some disability organizations frame this as necessary to preserve the exclusion so we can keep pressure on governments to improve supports or permit eligibility and risk that pressure disappearing.

This is a false choice.

Yes, Canadians have sought MAiD while unable to obtain appropriate mental health care, stable housing, income support, employment or access to justice – and they continue to advocate for it because this is a reality. This demands urgent reform. But the answer to failing systems is to fix them; it is not to make the people they fail carry the burden of preserving political pressure to do so. Canada has obligations both to strengthen supports and protect equality, dignity and autonomy.

We do not exclude someone with irremediable cancer because system failures such as late diagnosis, missed screening or geographic and economic inequities contributed to their condition. We recognize these issues as system failures requiring correction and look to them as evidence of injustice, but we do not use them as reasons to deny a person access to legal and medical processes.

The strongest objection is clinical: capacity and irremediability can be especially difficult to establish when the sole condition is a mental disorder, and suicidality may be a symptom rather than a separate, enduring and considered choice. That is a serious challenge. But difficulty is not impossibility, nor does it justify refusing to consider every member of one group. That mental suffering is harder to see, understand and trust contributes to the exclusion.

But we must note: Psychiatry already evaluates decision-making capacity, treatment resistance, prognosis and criminal responsibility. None of these judgments are infallible, and they are often difficult calls to make. Because a MAiD death is irreversible, assessments must be exceptionally rigorous. This is a reason to invest in specialized expertise, clear standards and robust oversight – not to decide the answer before an individual assessment begins.

The fear that someone might receive MAiD who, with the right support, would have chosen to live is legitimate. But exclusion from a dignified death alone will not and does not create safety. Some people experiencing severe and enduring mental illness will continue to die by suicide, often alone and outside any structured assessment or support.

The Netherlands is frequently invoked as a warning. Yet its official 2025 figures show 174 reported euthanasia cases in which suffering arose largely from psychiatric disorders out of 10,341 total cases – about 1.7 per cent. The number also fell by nearly 21 per cent from 2024. International evidence deserves careful study, but it does not by itself justify an indefinite Canadian exclusion.

MAiD is a deeply sensitive and complex issue, and we respect and hear the discussion and debate. We stand with the community and work for equity, inclusion and human rights. It is within this context that it is important to clarify that disability communities do not speak with one voice on MAiD. That disagreement should be represented honestly. There are many community members who want to maintain their right to die with dignity in cases of mental health as the sole underlying condition.

The exclusion for mental illness as the sole underlying condition is scheduled to end March 17, 2027. It should end on that timeline as planned and with the safeguards we have outlined in place. The need for safeguards should not become a reason to permanently bar people with irremediable mental suffering from a dignified death. That their suffering looks different, their capacity harder to assess and the systems impacting them failed are reasons to build robust safeguards. They are not grounds for a permanent exclusion.

System reform matters most to us – and we work hard for it. Neurodiversity Change Foundation is working with partners to develop solutions to improve health care, employment and access to justice for our community. What these efforts need is support – not risking the additional suffering of people to exert political pressure, nor the lack of fair and equitable assessments for legal and medical processes for a protected group.

Neurodivergence is not itself a mental illness or a basis for MAiD, but neurodivergent people are disproportionately affected by mental illness and system failures. We are rarely heard directly in this policy debate. Our federal submission proposes specialized training in mental illness and neurodivergence; condition-sensitive assessment guidance; meaningful exploration of treatment and social supports; and oversight informed by people with lived experience and deep clinical expertise.

We believe Canada can strengthen systems and uphold equal rights at the same time. A government serious about safety, dignity and equality must commit to both – and stick to its timelines.

If you or someone you know is struggling, support is available: BC Crisis Line 1-800-784-2433 (1-800-SUICIDE), or the Canada Suicide Crisis Helpline – call or text 988.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

5 Comments
  • A W says:

    I agree completely and thank you for sharing your insight. Yes, governments ought to strengthen systems and put in preventative supports, particularly for neurodivergents, but must simulatneously respect the autonomy of those suffering with mental illness who can no longer face a life of distress after the systems have already failed them. MAiD ought to be available to those suffering from mental illness as a sole cause for requesting it. Additionally, they should not be denied access to MAiD on the basis of lacking decision making capacity simply because they suffer from depression or other long term mental illness, because living with these conditions alone do not necessarily render a person unable to make a rational choice about their decision to access MAiD. Suggesting that a person with chronic depression is unable make rational decisions about their choice to use MAiD is discriminatory.

  • Kathleen Kilburn says:

    Thank you so much for this.

    I previously had more faith in my nation’s thoughfulness & judgement.
    Apparently I was wrong.

    • Kathleen Kilburn says:

      More detail, triggered by David’s post below. It’s just that I’m SO tired of having to defend, repeatedly, my civil right to the death of my choice. This is obscene.

      I’m going to be 68 this year. I’ve been requesting MAID, under conditions of my choice, from every GP I’ve had since I was mid-20s–I’d watched a beloved aunt wither away, under excellent care but nonetheless against her own wishes, and that moved me to action. She said, after her first stroke, “I should have died then.”, and she was right. After the second one, she moved out of her much-loved apartment to a care home–run by a niece, it was excellent, but she really wasn’t there any more. When I went to see her, walked in, standing before her, she asked me “Are you [my dead mother’s name}?” I am her namesake. I told her no, and who I was. She was SO well cared for, but she had left conscious life months ago. I swore at that point that I was NEVER going to end up that way. And all my Ottawa GPs supported that decision, silently, although of course it was illegal at the time.

      Then I moved to a small NE Ontario area. My first two GPs here (there’s a lot of turnover), told me with tears in their eyes, that they could not concur–because it was against their beliefs. And having looked at a similar issue from both sides, I actually understand that. And I absolutely do NOT support it. Nor do I support the comparable clause in the service agreement between the government of Ontario and all hospitals in the province.

      If you’re not going to provide a legal, requested, health service, from a competent patient (including clear previously-expressed wishes), peachy keen. Then give the money back.

      I’m now 68 this year, had a fall earlier this year, and was diagnosed as “early dementia, Alzheimer’s variety” while still in hospital. My designated MAID provider nonetheless accepted my lengthy and much-laboured-over MAID pre-document, for which I am eternally grateful. My GP is comfortable with my wishes. The hospital has accepted the document as well.

      But I have no idea if my wishes, MY WISHES, will be adhered to when the time comes. So I apparently need to explore other self-administered options, as a back-up.

      I’ve been diagnosed with depression for decades, the logical outcome of a crappy childhood with two alcoholic & substance misusing parents–not horrible, but completely neglectful.

      I have no idea if that past dx will come back to haunt me in future.

      I can’t tell you, but I’m sure you know from others, how terrifying this prospect is.

  • David says:

    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, individual and group therapies, hospitalizations, rTMS four separate times, ECT – 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.

    And I’ve had a supportive family, access to psychiatrists, case workers, food, and housing. This isn’t that I haven’t been able to access support, it’s that it hasn’t been able to improve my functioning, symptoms or quality of life. These have continued to get worse after almost 2 decades since I first seemed help for my mental health challenges.

    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.

    • Kathleen Kilburn says:

      Thank you for this.

      I’m so sorry for your plight.

      And I support your cause entirely, and wish you (and all of us) success with the legislation that WE want and need.

Authors

Lara McLachlan

Contributor

Lara McLachlan is the Founder and Interim Executive Director of the Neurodiversity Change Foundation, a British Columbia nonprofit focused on systems change for neurodivergent adults.

Republish this article

Republish this article on your website under the creative commons licence.

Learn more