Skip to Content Subscribe Our Offers My Account Manage My Subscriptions FAQ Newsletters Canada Canadian True Crime Canadian Politics Health World Israel & Middle East Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Comics NP News Quiz New York Times Crossword Horoscopes Life Eating & Drinking Style Sponsored Play for Ontario Travel Travel Canada Travel USA Travel International Cruises Travel Essentials Culture Books Celebrity Movies Music Theatre Television Business Essentials Advice Lives Told Tails Told Shopping Buy Canadian Home Living Outdoor Living Kitchen & Dining Tech Style & Beauty Personal Care Entertainment & Hobbies Gift Guide Travel Guide Amazon Prime Day Deals Savings National Post Store More Sports Hockey Baseball Basketball Football Soccer Golf Tennis Driving Vehicle Research Reviews News Gear Guide Obituaries Place an Obituary Place an In Memoriam Classifieds Place an Ad Celebrations Working Business Ads Archives Healthing Epaper Manage Print Subscription Profile Settings My Subscriptions Saved Articles My Offers Newsletters Customer Service FAQ Newsletters Canada World Financial Post NP Comment Longreads Puzzmo Diversions Life Shopping Epaper Manage Print Subscription HomeNP CommentChris Selley: The euthanasia committee did its job. Now it's Parliament's turnCanada's inability to help desperate people doesn't make death-by-government a suitable optionLast updated 4 days ago You can save this article by registering for free here. Or sign-in if you have an account.“Desperate people shouldn’t have to live in misery for want of proper health care. But that doesn’t make euthanasia proper health care,” Chris Selley writes. Photo by Adobe StockThe special joint committee on medical assistance in dying’s latest report, released Wednesday afternoon, takes a long, thoughtful and occasionally befuddling path to the simple and correct recommendation: “That the government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to indefinitely exclude persons whose sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness from eligibility for medical assistance in dying (MAID).”Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Enjoy the latest local, national and international news.Exclusive articles by Conrad Black, Barbara Kay and others. Plus, special edition NP Platformed and First Reading newsletters and virtual events.Unlimited online access to National Post.National Post ePaper, an electronic replica of the print edition to view on any device, share and comment on.Daily puzzles including the New York Times Crossword.Support local journalism.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one account.Share your thoughts and join the conversation in the comments.Enjoy additional articles per month.Get email updates from your favourite authors.Create an account or sign in to continue with your reading experience.Access articles from across Canada with one accountShare your thoughts and join the conversation in the commentsEnjoy additional articles per monthGet email updates from your favourite authorsSign In or Create an AccountorIn arriving there, it explores an intriguing philosophical and medical debate: Can doctors accurately distinguish between mental illness and suicidality? I don’t think it’s particularly relevant to the question who should be eligible for euthanasia, which the federal government has punted into the future twice, but it’s intriguing nonetheless. (The joint committee moots yet another punt as one of four options, but thankfully rejects it. People who are suffering terribly with mental illness, and desire euthanasia, at least deserve not being strung along year after year.)This newsletter from NP Comment tackles the topics you care about. (Subscriber-exclusive edition on Fridays)By signing up you consent to receive the above newsletter from Postmedia Network Inc.We encountered an issue signing you up. Please try againSuicidal behaviour is not technically considered a mental illness itself, which I think stands to reason. There are times when suicide is rational; for example if you’re suffering an irremediable, terminal illness, and you have weeks to live, and you’re in intractable pain. Those were the initial criteria for MAID, of course, and at least in theory, I think they hold up.But suicidality is intertwined with mental illness. Research published in 2002 concluded “98 per cent of those who committed suicide had a diagnosable mental disorder.”“Unlike physical conditions, suicidal ideation is part of the diagnostic criteria for many mental disorders, including depression, post-traumatic stress disorder and borderline personality disorder,” Dr. Jitender Sareen, head of psychiatry at the University of Manitoba, told the committee. “This goes to the core psychiatric practice, which is grounded in assessing and treating hopelessness and preventing suicide.”“I worry that in some cases, we may not be responding to an autonomous, enduring request for assisted dying, but rather to the voice of the illness itself,” Dr. Sandip Singh Gandham, Alberta’s medical lead for MAID, echoed. “That is not a distinction we can afford to get wrong.”“If people seek MAID because they cannot access the conditions necessary to live with dignity, that is not a triumph of autonomy; it is a failure of care,” he added. “In such cases, the suffering may be real, but its drivers may be remediable through social response rather than death as a medical intervention.”That’s ice-cold comfort in Canada, where remedies for remediable health-care situations take ages to arrive, if they ever do. And the awful thing is, Canada can afford to get the distinction wrong. Indeed, it can afford that more than getting the distinction right. It’s cheaper.Desperate people shouldn’t have to live in misery for want of proper health care. But that doesn’t make euthanasia proper health care.There are those who believe relieving suffering is its own reward. This week, Globe and Mail columnist André Picard deemed the 10th anniversary of legalized euthanasia, and the ending of more than 100,000 lives at the hands of MAID practitioners, a cause for “celebrating, not hand-wringing.”“Those who oppose choice seem to believe suffering is a necessary part of the human condition, an unavoidable part of life and death,” he wrote. “It’s fine to embrace that worldview, but you should not be allowed to impose that belief on others.”In the case of MAID for mental illness, though, we’re not talking about imposing views on suffering patients. We’re talking about imposing it on the medical profession, which generally sets its own standards for what procedures are appropriate in which circumstances, and it is clearly deeply divided on the issue. There would be nothing to celebrate if the government accepted the committee’s recommendation and just finally said, “no” to MAID solely for mental illness. People would still be miserable. But at least we wouldn’t be euthanizing people for remediable illnesses.Another option the committee mooted, and rightly rejected, was referring the matter to the Supreme Court as a reference case. That was the preference of three dissenting senators on the committee, Rosemary Moodie, Pamela Wallen and Kristopher Wells, based on their objection to what they called a “highly irregular and flawed process by which the (committee) conducted its business and on the poor quality of empirical medical, scientific, and research data that was presented at the committee.”Notably, they felt the witness list was stacked against allowing MAID solely for mental illness. Accepting purely for the sake of argument that they’re right, it certainly doesn’t follow that the Supreme Court should or could remedy it. Not to mention, given the courts’ track record it seems pretty certain where a majority of the court would land: They would frame prohibiting MAID for mental illness as a matter of “discrimination,” and deem it verboten.The courts played a huge role in getting us where we are, by obsessively and fallaciously focusing on a medical procedure — alone among medical procedures — as a “right.” It’s time Parliament grasped the damn nettle and did the right thing, the committee having shown it the way.National Post cselley@postmedia.com Join the Conversation This website uses cookies to personalize your content (including ads), and allows us to analyze our traffic. Read more about cookies here. By continuing to use our site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.