ReviewJournal of military, veteran and family health2026
Reimagining MAiD for psychiatric illness: Ethical dilemmas among Veterans, clinical realities, and the road ahead.
Review in Journal of military, veteran and family health, 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
Introduction: The expansion of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in Canada to include, as of Mar. 17, 2027, mental illness as a sole underlying medical condition (MI-SUMC) raises significant clinical, legal, and ethical concerns, particularly for Veterans, who are disproportionately affected by difficult-to-treat psychiatric conditions. Structural vulnerabilities, including poverty, discrimination, gender-based disparities, and poor access to care, compound psychiatric suffering and increase the risk of premature death among marginalized groups. Methods: The authors conducted a comprehensive review of clinical, legal, and ethical literature, including expert reports, case law, and systematic reviews. Key areas of analysis include terminology regarding difficult-to-treat conditions, limitations of current capacity assessments, structural vulnerability, and ethical tensions between suicide prevention and MAiD for MI-SUMC. Results: There is no consistent definition of difficult-to-treat conditions, with over 150 existing for major depressive disorder alone. Prognoses remain highly variable, weakening claims of irremediability. Current capacity assessments often overlook trauma, emotional states, and systemic barriers, introducing bias. Suicidality, a common symptom of psychiatric illness, complicates distinctions between autonomous MAiD requests and crisis responses. Last, evidence from jurisdictions like Belgium and the Netherlands demonstrates that structurally marginalized individuals are over-represented in psychiatric MAiD, raising concerns of systemic coercion. Discussion: Given the unresolved uncertainties around irremediability, suicidality, and access to care, a precautionary approach is warranted. Without equitable access to advanced, neuroscientifically informed treatments, some may request MAiD because of lack of alternatives. Safeguards such as longitudinal monitoring, inter-blinded assessments, and expanded access to care are essential to protect vulnerable groups, especially Veterans.
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.