An Ethical-Legal Analysis of Medical Assistance in Dying for Those with Mental Illness
Open accessAbstract
This article considers sources of opposition to allowing access to medical assistance in dying for individuals with mental illness. It originated with an observation by members of the University of Toronto Joint Centre for Bioethics that in mainstream Canadian culture — as well as in political, academic, and professional circles — such opposition remains widespread (and often reflexive). This opposition exists even in light of broad support for access to assisted dying for individuals with illness manifesting in physical suffering. Most Canadians treat the prospect of assisted dying for those with mental illness with suspicion, and it is worth exploring why this opposition persists, what arguments can be leveled to support it, and whether those arguments can be sustained. To that end, I identify five objections to assisted dying for the mentally ill that seem to characterize the public debate, and argue that none are sustainable. They either rely on false premises or otherwise fail to secure the conclusion that assisted dying should be off limits to people suffering from mental illness, even when such mental illness is their sole underlying condition.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Our findings do not support the claim that clinicians can rely on existing statistical and staging tools like the Maudsley Staging Method to predict chances of recovery in a person requesting psychiatric EAS.
“Second, our findings do not support the claim, made by some, that clinicians can rely on existing statistical and staging tools like the Maudsley Staging Method to predict chances of recovery in a person requesting psychiatric EAS (Provencher-Renaud, Larivée, & Sénéchal, 2019; Rooney et al., 2018; Tanner, 2018).”
From Irremediability in psychiatric euthanasia: examining the objective standard (2023) · cites this paper as Tanner, 2018
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nicolini, M. E., Kim, S. Y. H., Churchill, M. E., & Gastmans, C. (2020) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291720001543 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Irremediability in psychiatric euthanasia: examining the objective standard
Nicolini, M. E., Jardas, E., Zarate, C. A., Gastmans, C., & Kim, S. Y. H. (2023) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291722002951 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
“…do not support the claim, made by some, that clinicians can rely on existing statistical and staging tools like the Maudsley Staging Method to predict chances of recovery in a person requesting psychiatric EAS (Provencher-Renaud, Larivée, & Sénéchal, 2019; Rooney et al., 2018; Tanner, 2018).”
ResultThe influence of cognitive distortions on decision-making capacity for physician aid in dying
Dembo, J., van Veen, S., & Widdershoven, G. (2020) · International Journal of Law and Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2020.101627 · Cited by 19 · see citing works
Nicolini, M. E., Gastmans, C., & Kim, S. Y. H. (2019) · The American Journal of Bioethics · doi:10.1080/15265161.2019.1659606 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Tanner, R.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Tanner, Ryan
- Venue
- Alberta Law Review
- Publisher
- University of Alberta Libraries
- Published
- 2018-10-09
- Pages
- 149
- ISSN
- 0002-4821 (ISSN-L)
- 1925-8356
- OpenAlex
- W2898074310
- Cited by
- 10
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1
- FWCI
- 0.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Locations
- Alberta Law Review (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Ethics and bioethics in healthcare
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health, Medicine and Society
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Medical and Health Sciences Research
- Keywords
- medical assistance in dying, mental illness, assisted dying, bioethics
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review