I actually find those kinds of statements, coming from some people who were in positions to actually suggest potential legislative safeguards, quite remarkable, because while Dr. Gupta said that, she also chaired the same expert panel that literally said they were not recommending a single legislated safeguard for MAID for mental illness.
In terms of predicting irremediability of mental illness, the same expert panel—or the 10 remaining members, because one-sixth of them resigned, including the health care representatives—said they would not or could not provide guidance on the lengths, numbers or types of treatments that somebody should have access to before getting MAID for mental illness. To me, this actually speaks a bit to some of the points Ms. Long and others have raised. They paint a picture of how these are people who have been suffering for decades and decades and who have had multiple treatments. There's nothing in our legislation that requires that. It's an artificial picture.
If you want a sense of actual evidence-based numbers with respect to what this might be like, Scott Kim, a researcher at NIH, has done an evidence-based analysis and he estimates there are several thousand people a year.
The things in the model practice standard and other things that are not legislated and are not actual safeguards are basically suggestions. Suggestions are not safeguards. Reassurances without evidence are dangerous, in my opinion. This is a serious business. We are providing death to people who are not otherwise dying, and there need to be serious safeguards.
If Kenneth Law were a doctor instead of a chef, how comfortable would you be with his being your mother's MAID assessor if there were just non-binding suggestions and empty reassurances rather than legislated safeguards?