The committee has heard deeply divided testimony on whether Canada should expand medical assistance in dying to people whose sole condition is a mental illness. A central and recurring theme is whether clinicians can reliably determine irremediability—that a mental disorder will not respond to treatment—and whether they can distinguish a genuine, autonomous MAID request from suicidality driven by the illness itself. Multiple psychiatrists, including Dr. K. Sonu Gaind, Dr. Harvey Max Chochinov, and Professor Brian Mishara, have argued that these distinctions are impossible to make with current knowledge, citing the unreliability of psychiatric diagnoses, the unpredictability of recovery, and the absence of evidence-based criteria. Others, such as Dr. Mona Gupta and Dr. Sisco van Veen, have countered that psychiatrists are trained to assess decision-making capacity and that the complexities of mental illness are not fundamentally different from those of physical conditions already eligible for MAID.

Witnesses have come from a wide range of constituencies. The committee has heard from Canadian psychiatrists and medical organizations, including the Canadian Association of MAID Assessors and Providers, the Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, and the Association des médecins psychiatres du Québec. International perspectives have been provided by Dutch psychiatrists with direct experience of psychiatric euthanasia. Disability rights organizations, including Inclusion Canada and Disability Without Poverty, have testified, as have Indigenous representatives and legal scholars. Individuals with personal experience—both as patients and as family members of those who died by MAID—have also appeared. Notably, several witnesses described cases where they believed MAID was provided to people with treatable conditions or where systemic failures, such as inadequate housing or mental health services, drove the request.

Disagreement has been sharp and consistent across meetings. A significant number of witnesses have urged an indefinite pause or outright rejection of expansion, warning of risks to vulnerable populations, including women, young adults, Indigenous peoples, and people with disabilities. They have pointed to data from the Netherlands showing rising rates of psychiatric euthanasia, and to Canadian cases where MAID was provided despite apparent non-compliance with safeguards. On the other side, some witnesses have argued that excluding mental illness is discriminatory under the Charter, that clinical readiness has been achieved through training and guidance documents, and that a small number of people with truly refractory suffering should not be denied access. Legal scholars have disagreed on whether the Charter requires expansion, with some citing the Carter and Truchon decisions and others arguing those rulings do not extend to mental illness as a sole condition.

Over the course of the hearings, the committee has also heard about the state of readiness across jurisdictions. Officials from Health Canada and the Department of Justice noted that provinces and territories are at different stages, with Quebec and Alberta having legislated against expansion, and that there are no agreed metrics to define readiness. Later meetings included testimony from provincial regulatory bodies and hospital associations, who described both preparations and ongoing concerns about system capacity and equity. The committee has also received procedural documents, including a letter from the Quebec health minister opposing expansion, and has debated whether sufficient testimony from people with lived experience of mental illness who would seek MAID has been heard.