False Claim: Banning MAiD for mental illness will save “thousands of lives.”

Member of Parliament Andrew Lawton appeared on the YouTube channel The Bridgehead, where he claimed that banning MAiD for mental illness will save thousands of lives. Is that a month? A year? A decade? Ever?

Experts witnesses have consistently predicted that, because of the strict eligibility criteria and extensive safeguards, only a very small number of people—likely no higher than the low teens each year—would ultimately be found eligible for MAiD solely on the basis of a severe, persistent, and treatment-resistant mental illness.

Professor Daphne Gilbert told the parliamentary committee that:

“Clinicians agree that only a small number of people will ever meet the stringent eligibility criteria and rigorous safeguards. This matters because one justification for continued exclusion is a speculative claim that large numbers of people will become eligible if the ban is lifted. There's no evidence to support that claim.”https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/AMAD/meeting-4/evidence

And Dr. Claire Gamache stated:

“it is very clear to us that it would be for those with very serious mental conditions that have been developing for a number of years. By serious mental conditions, we mean conditions affecting 3% of the population. So these are patients that we have been following for many years. I have been practising psychiatry for 27 years. Among my patients, I would probably not have agreed to a request for medical assistance in dying more than two or three times, although I see many new patients each week. So we are talking about very few patients.”https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/AMAD/meeting-3/evidence

And Dr. Stefanie Green stated:

“We're talking small numbers, less than hundreds, for sure, in the teens. In the number of patients I've seen over the seven years—there have been hundreds of patients I've seen—very few have come forward due to mental illness up until this point. I cannot imagine that there will be very many out there who will be able to meet all of the rigorous standards. The eligibility criteria are rigorous. The safeguards are robust. It will be quite difficult for those with mental health disorders. I would say that probably for every hundred who apply, I would imagine one or two might be eligible.”https://www.parl.ca/documentviewer/en/44-1/AMAD/meeting-39/evidence

Lawton's claim appears to rest on the mistaken assumption that people with little or no history of mental health assessment or treatment could apply for MAiD and be approved. They could not. As we have discussed previously, this reflects a fundamental misunderstanding and misrepresentation of both the existing MAiD eligibility criteria and how they would apply to someone seeking MAiD for a severe, persistent, and treatment-resistant mental illness.

This claim has been repeated, almost word-for-word by MPs Tamara Jansen and Pierre Poilievre, in what appears to be a coordinated effort to turn an unsupported political talking point into an accepted fact. We see no clear evidence behind the claim that “thousands of lives” would be saved, and it directly contradicts expert testimony before parliamentary committees that the number of people who would actually qualify for MAiD where mental illness is the sole underlying condition would likely be very small.

How many people would be found eligible for MAiD for a severe, persistent, and treatment-resistant mental illness each year is unknown. But it is far more likely to resemble the cautious projections of experts with experience in mental illness and MAiD in Canada than the inflated certainty of a politician’s soundbite.