Back to MAiD in Canada Home
Back to Learning About MAiD
MAiD for Mental Illness: What the Law Requires
A closer look at Conservative MP Tamara Jansen's claims about Bill C-218—and why they don't hold up against the legal and clinical realities of Medical Assistance in Dying in Canada.
MAiD in Canada
April 7, 2026
Facts, Not Fear
Our Position
Our goal is not to convince anyone to feel the same way we do about MAiD. Everyone has a right—dare we say a duty—to decide for themselves. What we do expect is that people reach their conclusions based on facts, not claims designed to scare them.
The Problem
We deal with a great deal of mis- and disinformation at MAiD in Canada, mostly from ideological anti-MAiD groups and far-right religious organizations. What is less common—and more concerning—is when elected officials present claims that do not reflect the reality of how MAiD works in Canada.
Introducing Bill C-218
Conservative MP Tamara Jansen introduced Bill C-218—legislation that, if passed, would permanently exclude people suffering from an incurable and intractable mental illness from accessing MAiD. In her parliamentary speech, she presented this scenario:
"One day, he finally meets a psychiatrist. He goes, hoping that this might finally be the start of real help. His addictions still haven't been treated. His mental health care hasn't truly begun. He's vulnerable, scared, and hanging on by a thread. And in that appointment, instead of being offered a plan to get him stable, MAiD is raised as an option… and before he ever receives proper support for his mental health or his addictions, he is approved."

This portrayal does not align with the eligibility criteria or safeguards that currently govern MAiD in Canada. The scenario described would not meet the legal or clinical thresholds required in practice.
The Three Legal Requirements Jansen Ignores
Track 2 MAiD eligibility—which would apply in cases of mental illness—sets a very high legal bar. These criteria come directly from the Criminal Code (s. 241.2).
Incurability
The person must have a serious and incurable illness, disease, or disability—requiring years or decades of treatment history before such a determination could be made.
Irreversible Decline
The person must be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability—not simply suffering, but enduringly deteriorated beyond realistic expectation of recovery.
90-Day Minimum
There must be at least 90 clear days between the start of the first assessment and the provision of MAiD. In practice, mental illness cases would almost certainly take far longer.
Where Jansen's Story Falls Apart
Jansen's scenario is built around someone seeing a psychiatrist for the very first time, whose "mental health care hasn't truly begun." This person could not possibly meet the eligibility criteria for MAiD for mental illness.
Incurability requires years—if not decades—of sustained psychiatric involvement, medication trials, specialist assessments, and longitudinal follow-up before a clinician could conclude a condition is incurable. If treatment "hasn't truly begun," the requirement of incurability cannot be fulfilled. The assessments would not "move ahead"—they would stop.
Three Criteria. Three Failures.
Applying the law to Jansen's fictional scenario reveals it fails at every stage:
❌ Incurability Not Met
A person seeing a psychiatrist for the first time cannot be deemed to have an incurable condition. No treatment history exists to support that conclusion.
❌ Irreversible Decline Not Met
Mental illness is often cyclical. Someone whose treatment has "not truly begun" cannot be found to be in an advanced state of irreversible decline.
❌ 90-Day Safeguard Ignored
Jansen's story implies rapid approval. The law mandates a minimum 90-day assessment period—and mental illness cases would almost certainly extend well beyond that.

This is not a cautionary tale about how MAiD for mental illness would work. It is a fictional scenario that only functions if the actual eligibility criteria and safeguards are ignored entirely.
Jansen's Role on the Parliamentary Committee
Tamara Jansen is one of the Vice-Chairs of the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, which will debate the readiness for MAiD for mental illness in Canada. This raises serious concerns about whether she is engaging with this issue in a way that is informed by legal and clinical realities—or simply fear-mongering to fit the narrative of her Bill.
If Jansen does not understand how current MAiD eligibility criteria apply in cases of mental illness, what meaningful role can she play on this committee? And if she does understand those criteria but chooses to misrepresent them, the question remains the same.
A Fair Question
What constructive and honest contribution can Jansen offer to a parliamentary process studying an important health care issue she appears to fundamentally misunderstand—or misrepresent?
Legitimate Concerns vs. Misinformation
There are legitimate reasons to approach MAiD for mental illness with caution—no one seriously engaged in this issue denies that. It is entirely reasonable to hold the view that MAiD for mental illness should not be permitted at all. People are entitled to that position.
But personal belief alone cannot be the sole basis for public policy—particularly when it concerns end-of-life decision-making. Policy must be grounded in an accurate understanding of how the law, the constitution, and medicine operate in practice. You do not need to rely on exaggerated or unrealistic scenarios to express genuine concerns.

This is not a disagreement about values. This is a disagreement about facts.
What You Need to Know
MAiD for mental illness, if and when it is permitted in Canada, will be rare—and it will be rare for a reason.
High Legal Threshold
Eligibility requires incurability, irreversible decline, and a minimum 90-day assessment period. These are not minor hurdles.
Scrutinize the Stories
You will continue to hear emotionally compelling stories about how MAiD for mental illness might work. Many will not reflect how the law will actually operate.
Ground Views in Facts
Concern about MAiD for mental illness is reasonable. But those views must be grounded in an accurate understanding of the legal framework—not scenarios that depend on ignoring it.
About MAiD in Canada
MAiD in Canada delivers accurate, compassionate insights on Medical Assistance in Dying. Led by nurses Paul Magennis and Kim Carlson, we address misinformation, share updates, and explore key issues to inform and empower our readers.
Over 1,000 subscribers and growing.