Search Here

As the federal Liberals approach a pivotal decision in early 2024, the future of medical assistance in dying or MAID hangs in the balance. The approaching deadline in March poses a critical choice: whether to embrace the expansion of MAID eligibility to include adults seeking it solely due to a mental disorder or to further postpone, perhaps indefinitely, as they did in 2023.

Justice Minister Arif Virani recently highlighted the government's need to assess recommendations from Parliament members and senators following extensive committee hearings last fall. Amidst calls for a deeper examination, the government has been contemplating extending the deadline. However, further delays raised concerns about human suffering and societal messages regarding the rights of those with mental disorders.

The fear persists that additional postponements might result in legal battles, potentially challenging the constitutionality of exclusion based on mental illness as grounds for MAID. As the need for decision nears, the debate remains intense, reflecting the complexity of balancing individual autonomy, healthcare ethics, and societal responsibilities in the context of assisted dying. At the heart of this debate are some unanswered critical questions.

Is Canada prepared?

Medical professionals assert readiness for the widened eligibility, challenging concerns about system readiness.

Does consensus matter?

Expert consensus has remained elusive, with divisions among members of the parliament, senators, psychiatrists and mental health organizations evident during committee hearings.

How should provincial divergence be handled?

Provinces in Canada stand divided. While some, like Quebec and Saskatchewan, expressed reservations, others, including New Brunswick and Ontario, took steps to prepare.

Is there sufficient study?

Criticisms surfaced regarding the depth of studies, particularly concerning the scope of the panel report and the lack of scrutiny on this aspect of the law.

What are the potential legal battles?

The exclusion of individuals solely suffering from mental illness sparked constitutional debates, hinting at possible legal challenges on the grounds of discrimination.