ReviewBMJ open2026
Medical Assistance in Dying for the Sole Underlying Condition of Mental Disorder (MAiD MD-SUMC): an analysis and qualitative evidence synthesis.
Review in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo synthesise existing qualitative and conceptual literature on the implementation, ethical considerations and policy implications of Medical Assistance in Dying for Mental Disorder as a Sole Underlying Medical Condition (MAiD MD-SUMC) in Canada and internationally.
designA qualitative evidence synthesis using a thematic analysis approach. Empirical, conceptual and policy papers addressing MAiD for mental disorders were identified through major databases and grey literature. Studies were thematically analysed to identify recurring ethical, clinical and policy themes related to eligibility, assessment and implementation. DATA SOURCES: Data was extracted from a systematic search of Medline and Embase for peer-reviewed studies published from 1974 onwards, supplemented by relevant policy documents and legal cases. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies were included if they examined MAiD MD-SUMC and explored ethical, legal or clinical considerations or provided stakeholder perspectives. Exclusion criteria included studies focusing solely on non-psychiatric conditions or not published in English. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Two independent reviewers screened, extracted and analysed data using an iterative thematic synthesis approach. Key themes were identified through consensus discussions.
resultsThe synthesis identified four major themes: (1) Irremediability and treatment resistance-persistent uncertainty regarding when mental disorders can be considered irremediable. (2) Capacity and vulnerability-ongoing debate about assessing capacity amid fluctuating symptoms and social influences. (3) Ethical and policy considerations-divergent interpretations of autonomy, justice and safeguards highlighting the need for standardised criteria. (4) Public and professional perspectives-public and family support for inclusion, although clinician hesitancy exists.
conclusionsThe evidence supports a thoughtful, structured approach to potential implementation of MAiD MD-SUMC in Canada. Future priorities include refining criteria for irremediability, standardising capacity assessments, addressing disorder-specific complexities and strengthening mental health infrastructure. Continued research, engagement and transparent policy dialogue will be essential to ensure that any expansion of MAiD upholds ethical integrity, protects vulnerable persons and maintains public trust.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.