Abstract:The Feature article by Bastidas-Bilbao and colleagues Reference Bastidas-Bilbao, Castle, Gupta, Stergiopoulos and Hawke 1 proposes a sophisticated framework for evaluating the impact of the Canadian policy for medical assistance in dying (MAiD) for people with mental illness. The article is timely, as concerns about mentally ill patients having access to MAiD have led to a hiatus in its provision, and attention has shifted to devising a suitable programme that can be broadly agreed upon and implemented uniformly. To achieve this, an expert panel was convened by the Canadian government to provide advice regarding 'protocols, guidance and safeguards to apply to requests made [...] by persons who have a mental illness' 2 (p. 19). In 2022, this panel published a report in which they laid out 'a broad set of principles to structure the practice of MAiD' 2 (p. 12) for those with mental illness and although they supported its provision, they set limits to its application and made 19 recommendations for how MAiD should be enacted. The report is detailed but the recommendations may not provide sufficient safeguards. To illustrate this, we briefly comment on the inadequacy of the key eligibility criterion for MAiD, namely, the definition of a 'grievous and irremediable medical condition' and argue for further research. In its report the panel defined irremediability in line with the Canadian criminal code, as having three components: incurability of the illness, disease or disability; irreversibility of the decline in capability; and enduring and intolerable suffering. And although the panel acknowledged the 'interdependence of the three elements' 2 (p. 53), it nevertheless made three separate recommendations. Recommendations 2 and 3, which relate to establishing incurability and irreversibility respectively, both require the person requesting MAiD (requestor) and the person assessing eligibility for MAiD (assessor) to arrive at a 'shared understanding' of the definition of incurability and irreversibility. Further, in both recommendations, the respective definitions depend on the treatments tried. At the same time, the panel argues that 'it is not possible to provide fixed rules' 2 (p. 55) for the number and type of treatment attempts or over what time these should have been trialled, concluding that these 'must be assessed on a case-by-case basis'. In addition, recommendation 4 describes suffering as 'a personal experience' and notes that 'it is subjective' 2 (p. 57), which means that if a person states that their suffering is unbearable then this must be taken at face value. Reference Dembo, Schuklenk and Reggler 3 Therefore, in effect, the determination of eligibility for MAiD is left solely to clinical judgement and consensual agreement between the requestor and the assessor, and no objective standard is set for either incurability or irreversibility. This is problematic because even though recommendations 10, 11 and 12 propose safeguards, such as having independent assessors, involving other healthcare professionals in decision-making, and seeking collateral information, the process of determining eligibility for MAiD remains vulnerable to abuse as there is no specified objective standard of care that a mentally ill person must satisfy. This approach is also not in keeping with assessment procedures employed to assess suitability of psychiatric patients for other irreversible interventions. For instance, to be eligible for deep brain stimulation or psychosurgery, which are sometimes used to treat intractable psychiatric conditions, the individual is expected to have trialled all other available evidence-based treatment options. Reference Figee, Riva-Posse, Choi, Bederson, Mayberg and Kopell 4, Reference Müller, van Oosterhout, Bervoets, Christen, Martínez-Álvarez and Bittlinger 5 In severe depression, for example, the person should ideally have trialled several courses of psychotherapy, pharmacotherapy and electroconvulsive therapy. In contrast, the Canadian expert panel seems to have placed greater emphasis on the requestor's preferences and the 'conditions they consider acceptable' because 'capable persons are usually entitled to refuse interventions they do not wish to receive' 2 (p. 58). But ending one's life is not a usual situation and given that the ontology of mental illnesses is unknown and psychotropic treatments are largely non-specific, setting a treatment standard for each kind of mental illness seems prudent. Moreover, medical procedures should be provided in the best interests of patients. Clearly patients can desire things, in -Abstract Truncated-

Covid-19: Charities question inquiry's "refusal" to fully examine mental health impact

Covid‐19, social restrictions, and mental distress among young people: a UK longitudinal, population‐based study

What we did not learn at the covid inquiry in Scotland: a gap analysis

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in individuals with pre-existing mental illness

Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science

COVID-19 pandemic, mental health care, and the UK

Health leaders urge the government to restore funding for NHS staff wellbeing hubs

Covid inquiry: communication failures impeded the UK's pandemic response

The mental health of Australians bereaved during the first two years of the COVID-19 pandemic: a latent class analysis

Perspectives of patients, family members, health professionals and the public on the impact of COVID-19 on mental health

The Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Those Supported in the Community with Long-Term Mental Health Problems: A Qualitative Analysis of Power, Threat, Meaning and Survival

Psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and life satisfaction following COVID-19 infection: evidence from 11 UK longitudinal population studies

Effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health of carers of people with intellectual disabilities

The problem with mental health awareness

Cross-sectional analysis to explore the awareness, attitudes and actions of UK adults at high risk of severe illness from COVID-19

Covid-19 and the Crisis in Social Care: Exploring the Experiences of Disabled People in the Pandemic

The Benefits and Harms of Open Notes in Mental Health: A Delphi Survey of International Experts

Mental health and its wider determinants in young people in the UK during 12 months of the COVID-19 pandemic: repeated cross-sectional representative survey

Medical assistance in dying for mental illness: a complex intervention requiring a correspondingly complex evaluation approach: commentary, Malhi et al

Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the mental health and well-being of adults with mental health conditions in the UK: a qualitative interview study

Mental health in the COVID-19 pandemic: A longitudinal analysis of the CLoCk cohort study