A leading Canadian health law and bioethics expert delivered a stark warning to members of a House of Commons committee studying the expansion of medical assistance in dying (MAID), arguing the policy risks steering vulnerable Canadians toward premature death rather than protecting them.

“Let me be blunt,” said Trudo Lemmens, a professor of health law and bioethics with more than 25 years of experience. “There are myriad reasons not to introduce MAID for sole reasons of mental illness, and they are clearer than ever.”

Lemmens, who also serves on Ontario’s MAID Death Review Committee but emphasized he was speaking in a personal capacity, laid out two central concerns: constitutionality and patient safety.

Health law expert Trudo Lemmens warns MPs and Senators that expanding MAID to mental illness could create a “predictable pathway” to death.

“Unaddressed suicidality… did not stop MAID providers from ending people’s lives.”

“People shop for assessors willing to say yes.” pic.twitter.com/jff12ryrVA

— Sheila Gunn Reid (@SheilaGunnReid) March 30, 2026

“First, it is not constitutionally required. Second, evidence from Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands shows it would create significant additional risks of premature deaths for many Canadians with mental illness.”

He pointed to a growing body of legal opinion rejecting the idea that MAID must be extended to mental illness to comply with the Charter.

“A letter signed by more than 30 scholars, including leading constitutional and human rights experts, supports this,” he told MPs.

Lemmens also pushed back on claims that excluding mental illness from MAID would be discriminatory.

Go Ad Free

“It is wrong to claim that denying MAID for sole mental illness is discriminatory… This reverses the burden of justification. Instead, we must ask what current MAID problems tell us about the risk of expanding.”

And those problems, he said, are already serious.

“There is accumulating troubling evidence,” he warned, citing official review reports that include “sloppy, impressionistic and minimalistic assessments.”

According to Lemmens, some cases involved patients receiving MAID despite significant unresolved issues.

“Unaddressed suicidality, psychosis, substance use issues, pressure from caregiver burnout, and cognitive impairments did not stop MAID providers from ending people’s lives.”

He added that “some cases involved only cursory reviews of mental health history.”

In one alarming example, Lemmens told MPs, “a woman seeking suicide prevention in B.C. was informed about MAID,” while “a man involuntarily hospitalized for suicidality received MAID while on a day pass.”

Perhaps most concerning, he said, is how the system is already functioning in practice.

“Some MAID providers already function as a pole of attraction for suicidal people,” he testified. “People shop for assessors willing to say yes even when care teams are working toward recovery.”

That dynamic, he warned, creates a dangerous incentive structure.

“Such providers become a predictable pathway, much like a suicide-prone bridge drawing people toward guaranteed death.”

He contrasted that with standard suicide prevention practices.

“We know that when a known pathway is removed, many people will be saved… MAID for mental illness does the opposite.”

Instead of erecting barriers, he said, the policy would “institutionalize a medicalized method of death for mental illness, where hopelessness is often a key symptom.”

Lemmens also raised concerns about disproportionate impacts on women.

“Women attempt suicide at about twice the rate of men, and in jurisdictions allowing psychiatric euthanasia, many more women than men receive it.”

He pointed to data from the Netherlands, noting that “an overwhelming majority” of younger patients receiving psychiatric euthanasia were women.

Despite assurances from proponents that such cases would remain rare, Lemmens dismissed those claims.

“Reassurances that the practice will remain rare… are speculative and unfounded.”

He warned Canada could see even broader use than European countries.

“We will further see many more cases than in Belgium or the Netherlands, where psychiatric euthanasia… is on the rise.”

Compounding the issue, he said, is Canada’s strained mental health system.

“Canada’s MAID law and policy emphasize access over protection,” he said. “Several Canadian provinces face worse problems with access to timely and quality mental health care.”

He cited wait times showing “10 percent of people wait six months or more… 50 percent wait one month.”

In closing, Lemmens framed the decision before Parliament in stark terms.

“The question before Parliament is very concrete… will the law strengthen guardrails and prioritize suicide prevention, or do the opposite?”