Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that answer, Senator Gold. I think it’s pretty clear that 2% and 2% are the same number.

The issue here also is that people who have a mental disorder but have a concurrent physical illness are now eligible, even if it’s the mental disorder that is the primary reason for their request. There doesn’t seem to be a problem currently in providing the kind of comprehensive approach and support and everything else that your government is talking about necessarily having for people who have just a sole mental disorder.

Help us understand why this is not discriminatory. If you have a mental illness and a physical illness, it’s okay, but if you just have a mental illness, it’s not okay.

Senator Kutcher: Thank you so much for your contribution to the debate. It’s very appreciated, and I do appreciate the consistency in your position. I don’t agree with it, but I appreciate your consistency.

You talked about necessity for medical consensus before we allowed medical assistance in dying for a sole mental disorder, but we are all aware that there is no medical consistency on MAID itself. In fact, we have heard lots of testimony in our committees that there are lots of physicians in the palliative care community who don’t want MAID and say it’s bad and to forget it. There’s no consensus.

How can we allow MAID for people with a physical illness when there’s no consensus but deny people with a mental illness when there’s no consensus?

[Translation]

Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much for that. I do very much appreciate that your perspective is different than mine. That’s fine and that’s okay, but I think we do have to actually look at what the evidence tells us, and we have to look at what causes discrimination for one group against another group of people for the same argument. I would encourage all of us to think about that.

You mentioned Dr. Kim in your speech. Are you aware that the evidence he gave before the Superior Court Of Québec was discounted and that the judge had substantive concerns about the quality of the evidence that he gave? Maybe you weren’t aware. Otherwise, you probably wouldn’t have quoted him here. I think people need to know that some of the information you provided was actually already litigated in court and the courts found not to support it.

[Translation]

Senator Kutcher: Thank you very much, Senator Martin, and I respect your opinion. I know we differ on this, but I also know that you respect my opinion, and I think our personal friendship and the way we have worked together for many years is a good reflection of how we can differ, but we can respect that. I also thank you for pointing out that “never ready” may be the logical outcome of this bill, and I respect that this is how you feel it should be.

You mentioned consensus. We’ve had this discussion with other questions about consensus. You’re right. Some psychiatrists would continue to try treatment after treatment after treatment, even after decades, and the patient is completely exhausted. It happens in oncology as well until someone says they don’t want any more treatment.

For those here who haven’t read it, there’s a fantastic Substack article that was published last week saying that psychiatry has a futility problem. That’s right, and I would like your opinion on this. Some psychiatrists seem unable to acknowledge futility, but they want to expose patients to more and more treatments, which not only causes harm but also undermines patient autonomy and violates the principles of truth telling and trustworthiness. Do you think we should be in a situation where we allow some physicians to keep doing that to patients?