My impression from that experience was that I received conflicting answers from the providers in question.
His MAID provider seemed to suggest that his suicidality was a reason for MAID. In the conversations we had, as I mentioned, she suggested that he might just kill himself without MAID—that suicide was more plausible now, and things like that. Then, when I broached the prospect of his depression, she told me that if he had depression, he would be ineligible for MAID. I didn't quite understand the conflict in those comments: “If he has depression, he can't have MAID, but it's okay to be suicidal.” If you look at the way the right-to-die movement frames this, they have this idea of rational suicide and will start to make a separation there.
His provider said that the psychiatrist would just agree with her when it came to a psychiatric assessment. The psychiatrist's assessment talks about his depression and quotes my father saying something to the effect of.... It's very minimizing language, and it goes on from that. The assessment itself has been described as global to me, and subpar. There is almost a conflict between what the psychiatrist was exploring and the different statements his provider said to me. It was very confusing.
If we look at MAID for mental illness, we're going to get divergent views among individual clinicians. As the law is written, as I understand it—if it comes to pass in 2027—it wouldn't be psychiatrists doing the assessments for mental health cases. It would be the same nurse practitioners, general practitioners or medical practitioners doing these assessments without any training as it is. When we move into that space, we won't have any coherence.