I’ve heard this line of argument before: that our opponents and their views with which we don’t agree are merely ideological, whereas we base our position on science. From an epistemological point of view, it’s not particularly convincing.
That said, Dr. Gupta, we often forget that making a request does not automatically mean one is eligible for medical assistance in dying. We overlook the entire process that determines eligibility or ineligibility. That is the subject of today’s discussion.
A report by the expert panel has suggested conditions under which MAID could be extended to mental health conditions where these represent the sole medical issue cited. The fact that a patient makes a request does not automatically make this person eligible.
These conditions apply in particular to patients contemplating suicide or to newly admitted and diagnosed patients whose request is based on structural vulnerabilities. When a suicidal patient requests medical assistance in dying, at the very least, we have the opportunity to raise a red flag and treat that person.
This was made very clear in your expert report. The patients’ circumstances and context are taken into account. One recommendation even stated that, if a link could be established with structural vulnerabilities, proceeding with the request would be out of the question. You even go so far as to suggest providing them with financial assistance, helping them find accommodation, and so on.
These conditions apply if patients refuse, without justification, all treatments that could improve their condition, even though accessible and effective treatments are available, and if the assessors are unable to reach a conclusion on all or some of the criteria. Some say that a psychiatrist cannot make reliable diagnoses or prognoses, and they wonder whether, ultimately, it really is a science.
If a patient cannot meet all or some of these criteria, that person is not eligible.
Am I wrong?