This meeting of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying studied the eligibility of MAID for those whose sole condition is mental illness. Witnesses included Dutch psychiatrists Dr. Jim van Os, Dr. Wilbert van Rooij, and Dr. Sisco van Veen, as well as Alicia Duncan, Helen Long of Dying with Dignity Canada, and Alexander Schadenberg of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.
Dr. Jim van Os warned that the Dutch experience offers a cautionary tale for Canada, citing a fivefold increase in psychiatric euthanasia among people under 30 and a 200% overall rise since 2020. He argued that Canadian law, where patient choice can override physician judgment, could drive numbers even higher, and that euthanasia for mental suffering is often indistinguishable from physician-performed suicide. He recommended against expansion, noting that the UN and the International Association for Suicide Prevention have raised concerns.
Dr. Wilbert van Rooij described how erosion of mental health services in the Netherlands has deepened despair and increased MAID requests from treatable patients who lack timely care. He emphasized that vulnerability is not evenly distributed, with women, young adults, and people with trauma, autism, or personality disorders overrepresented among those granted psychiatric euthanasia. He urged Canada to pause, arguing that the certainty required for euthanasia is often an illusion in psychiatry.
Dr. Sisco van Veen stated that MAID for psychiatric suffering should remain available for a small group of patients, as he does not see differences between chronic physical and mental suffering as sufficient to justify a complete ban. He noted that the Netherlands saw a 21% drop in psychiatric MAID cases in 2025, partly due to polarized debate, and that he is working on updated guidelines focusing on balance between safety and accessibility. He disagreed with Dr. van Os on the impossibility of distinguishing rational requests from suicidality, citing established competence assessment tools.
Alicia Duncan testified about her mother Donna, who was euthanized hours after release from a psychiatric unit following a suicide attempt, despite a family-obtained warrant under the Mental Health Act. She argued that families cannot reliably intervene in real time, that no effective post-death oversight exists to verify legal compliance, and that behaviour rooted in mental distress—such as disordered eating—can be converted into MAID eligibility. She concluded that Canada is not ready for expansion.
Helen Long argued that a small group of people with acute, treatment-resistant mental disorders should have access to MAID, and that 80% of Canadians support this. She stated that clinicians can assess suicidality and that the current system includes safeguards, and she urged the committee to listen to voices of people with lived experience who would be eligible. She disagreed with claims that the system lacks accountability, asserting that professional and criminal liability encourages proper practice.
Alexander Schadenberg argued that Canada should not expand MAID to mental illness without a full review of how the current law functions, citing cases like that of Kiano Vafaeian, who received MAID in British Columbia after being rejected in Ontario. He criticized the Criminal Code’s “of the opinion” standard for making accountability nearly impossible, and noted that the UN Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities has called for a repeal of Track 2 MAID and no further expansion.
The committee briefly debated a letter from the Quebec health minister opposing expansion, which was received in response to a motion for document production. Procedural points of order were raised regarding the witness list, with some members asserting that sufficient lived-experience testimony had been heard, while others argued that voices of people directly seeking MAID for mental illness were missing.
AI-generated summary — may contain errors; verify against the official evidence.