\t\tRead: 4 min<\/p>\n
Canadian journalists need to significantly change how they report on medical assistance in dying (MAID) for mental illness, a new report<\/a> says.\u00a0<\/p>\n Most news articles about MAID for mental illness do not include perspectives from people with mental illnesses, the report says.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cThe voice and everyday experiences of people with lived experience of mental illness were limited [in news articles],\u201d says the report, released July 15 by the Canada Excellence Research Chair in Health Equity and Community Wellbeing at Toronto Metropolitan University.<\/p>\n \u201cThis absence raises concerns about the implications of MAID\u2019s expansion for impacted communities.\u201d<\/p>\n Most Canadians do not understand Canada\u2019s MAID laws, Danielle Landry, the report\u2019s lead author and research associate at the centre, told Canadian Affairs in an interview.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cI don\u2019t think most Canadians are informed [about MAID],\u201d she said. \u201cIf it was being reported on as a health issue, then maybe people would be paying more attention.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n \u2018People tune out\u2019<\/p>\n Landry and her research team examined 367 English Canadian news articles about MAID for mental illness published between 2020 and 2024.\u00a0<\/p>\n Most of these articles focused on federal MAID legislation, which has evolved considerably in recent years.\u00a0<\/p>\n In March 2021, the Trudeau government passed legislation removing the requirement that a person\u2019s death be \u201creasonably foreseeable\u201d to qualify for MAID.\u00a0The law said people whose only condition is a mental illness would be eligible for MAID beginning March 2023.<\/p>\n In March 2023, Parliament delayed the expansion of MAID for mental illness until 2024. In early 2024, Parliament delayed the expansion again until 2027.<\/p>\n Landry\u2019s research team found much of the news coverage about these changes focused on political debates rather than health implications. Politicians were most often quoted and pictured, with medical experts sometimes commenting on the political developments.<\/p>\n \u201cThis suggests that articles are geared more towards politically astute readers, rather than informing the average Canadian about what\u2019s at stake in this debate,\u201d the report says.<\/p>\n The report recommends journalists instead report on MAID as a public health issue. Health reporting is more likely to discuss ethical and moral issues, and show how MAID impacts Canadians\u2019 lives, Landry says.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen [MAID is] reported on as a political news story, sometimes people tune out,\u201d she said.\u00a0<\/p>\n Reporting should also show MAID\u2019s impact on communities, instead of only focusing on an individual\u2019s experience with MAID.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen one person accesses MAID, it has ripple effects,\u201d said Landry.<\/p>\n Missing information <\/p>\n News reporting on MAID for mental illness also left out key details about MAID, the researchers found.<\/p>\n Most articles studied by the researchers did not explain the differences between Track 1 and Track 2 MAID.\u00a0<\/p>\n Track 1 MAID is available to eligible individuals whose deaths are reasonably foreseeable, whereas Track 2 MAID is for eligible individuals whose deaths are not reasonably foreseeable. People with disabilities or incurable illnesses can be approved for Track 2 MAID, even if they are not dying.\u00a0<\/p>\n Opinion pieces critical of MAID\u2019s expansion were most likely to explain the differences between Track 1 and Track 2 MAID, the report says.<\/p>\n \u201cIf [journalists are] not bothering to explain why [Track 2 MAID] might be concerning to folks \u2014 why somebody might have an alarm bell going off around these issues \u2014 it is concerning because then [people are] not informed,\u201d said Landry.<\/p>\n Canada\u2019s Track 2 MAID laws have come under considerable scrutiny. In March, the United Nations recommended<\/a> Canada scrap Track 2 MAID altogether, including allowing MAID for mental illness. Last fall, several disability organizations launched a Charter challenge<\/a> against it.<\/p>\n People with mental illnesses have a range of opinions about whether MAID for mental illness should be allowed, says Landry, who taught in disability studies for a decade and has a personal mental health history.\u00a0<\/p>\n Suffering<\/p>\n But people with mental illnesses are rarely included in news articles about MAID for mental illness, the report says. When they are, mental illness is most often described as suffering.<\/p>\n The study recommends journalists stop equating mental illness with suffering.<\/p>\n \u201cWhen mental illness is repeatedly framed in the context of suffering, the framing effect could serve to reinforce notions that life with severe mental illness is not worth living,\u201d the report says.<\/p>\n This allows \u201ceugenic ideology [to] seep into public discourse,\u201d said Landry. Eugenic ideology focuses on finding a so-called \u201cideal\u201d person or race.<\/p>\n People\u2019s value often becomes tied to what they can do, says Landry.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cWe start to tie people\u2019s value to their productivity,\u201d she said. \u201c[But] people contribute to society in a myriad of different ways. We can\u2019t be making life or death decisions based on whether or not somebody is productive enough.\u201d<\/p>\n People with mental illnesses may come to believe that they are burdens on others, she says.<\/p>\n In 2023, 45 per cent of Track 1 MAID patients and 49 per cent of Track 2 MAID patients reported they were suffering because they felt like a burden to others, a 2024 Health Canada report<\/a> says.<\/p>\n Media reporting guidelines<\/p>\n The report also recommends Canada\u2019s media industry develop guidelines about reporting on MAID. Guidelines about reporting on suicide \u2014 such as ones from the World Health Organization<\/a> \u2014 may help to inform these guidelines, the report says.<\/p>\n People who have mental illnesses should also help develop these guidelines, the report says.\u00a0<\/p>\n \u201cIt can\u2019t just be journalists writing for journalists,\u201d said Landry. \u201cThere actually needs to be some input from the communities that are being represented.\u201d\u00a0<\/p>\n These conversations need to happen now, she says.<\/p>\n