As someone who went through the MAID process for a partner who had mental health as part of their "case" so to speak, I feel like I have to say something to those who fear that an expansion of this service will lead to "eugenics" or something like that.
We boast in Canada about "Universal Health Care" but we don't fund it in that way. Don't get me wrong, in comparison to our neighbors to the south we have it really good, but how can we claim "universal health" yet most people still need to pay for their own dental coverage, mental health support, eye doctors.
What expanding MAID to allow for mental health and addictions is to look at someone as a whole. Lindsay was told by some professionals that her "depression and anxiety" meant that she did not qualify for MAID. ... in what world does someone who has intense medical problems not struggle with depression and anxiety? And how does the presence of these things supersede the horrible consequences of her physical health diagnoses?
That element of the total health of a person should not discount them from MAID, which is what is happening to people who want to end their suffering but cannot given the current construction of the laws. What changing this law will do is to allow for medical professionals to have the right to look at the entire health of a person, their lived experience and EVERYTHING that comes with it, in order for the medical expert and the person suffering to come to a conclusion together.
Never will the expansion of this law mean that the government has an "out" to creating more solutions to homelessness, addictions, mental health. No. What it does is allow a person who is suffering a proper opportunity to take control of how their life ends... instead of suffering to what the final result would be. Make no mistake about it, Lindsay was dying from her medical diagnoses, depression and anxiety or not.
To me, opponents to this law simply are afraid that some people will choose to end their lives on their own terms. That fear is real; I experienced it first hand throughout the year Lindsay and I took that journey together. The only fear Lindsay had was being told no, that she didn't have the right to stop suffering.
When Lindsay and I chatted with our second assessor (technically the fifth assessor we spoke to all together) and were given a yes, I wept. I knew what that meant. Lindsay cheered, because she knew what that meant. She finally could take control of a life that went entirely out of her control for years and put an end to the suffering and deterioration. She wouldn't have to die in a hospital gasping for air or any other terrible fate. Instead she could fall asleep peacefully not not have to wake up.
Opponents of MAID and expanding it... I understand the fear. I lived it. The fear we have of our loved ones passing away does NOT permit us to deny our loved ones the right to self-determination.
I was interested in your thoughts on this, but I didn't want to ping you and reopen relatively fresh wounds (but thank you for contributing, and continuing to be open about your experience). The issue I had, and I'm not even 100% on my position, is this part "will be expanded next March to give access to people whose sole medical condition is mental illness, which can include substance use disorders."
In your wife's case it makes total sense, she had mental health struggles but that was coupled with a host of other medical issues. In cases like that I don't see why mental health/drug abuse would influence MAID. It's the sole medical part that seems kind of iffy to me, but again I'm no expert and I can empathize with people who wish to expand MAID.