Dr. Gupta, in a National Post article featuring an interview with Dr. Gaind, it is stated that a doctor in the Netherlands must conclude that the person’s suffering is unbearable. Both the doctor and the patient must be convinced that there are no reasonable alternatives. However, Dr. Gaind points out that Canada currently has no similar requirements regarding reasonable care. People must be informed of the means available to alleviate their suffering.
On page 13 of the report, it states:
[...] the incurability of a mental disorder cannot be established in the absence of multiple attempts at interventions with therapeutic aims.
Here, we’re getting into the definition of "reasonable".
Recommendation 8 states that assessors should ensure that the requester is consistent and thinking rationally during a period of stability, not during a period of crisis.
Then, in Recommendation 10, it states:
The requester should be assessed by at least one assessor with expertise in the condition(s). In cases involving MAiD MD-SUMC, the assessor with expertise in the condition should be a psychiatrist independent from the treating team/provider. Assessors with expertise in the person’s condition(s) should review the diagnosis, and ensure the requester is aware of all reasonable options for treatment and has given them serious consideration.
It strikes me as a bit out of place. Do you agree with Dr. Gaind that there is no such concept of reasonable care being provided?