Bill C-218 inserts an explicit exclusion into the Criminal Code: a mental disorder is not, by itself, a grievous and irremediable medical condition for which medical assistance in dying (MAID) may be provided. The bill does not create new offences or authorizations; it changes eligibility by replacing subsection 241.2(2.1) to state the exclusion plainly and adds coordinating provisions that govern how this text interacts with the 2021 federal MAID amendments.
This matters because it directly removes psychiatric illness as a sole ground for MAID eligibility and forces clinicians, provincial regulators, and MAID oversight bodies to change assessment practices and guidance. It also creates legal and operational questions about interpretation, timing relative to prior legislation, and how health systems will respond to redirected demand for mental-health supports and suicide-prevention services.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill replaces subsection 241.2(2.1) of the Criminal Code so that a mental disorder is explicitly excluded from the statutory definition of a 'grievous and irremediable medical condition' used to determine MAID eligibility. It contains coordinating clauses that modify or repeal overlapping text from the 2021 MAID amendments depending on which provision comes into force first.
Who It Affects
People whose only serious health condition is a mental disorder, clinicians who assess MAID requests, MAID coordination bodies, provincial health systems that deliver MAID and mental-health services, and advocacy organizations on both sides of MAID-for-mental-illness debates.
Why It Matters
The bill narrows the pool of patients eligible for MAID and requires operational changes to assessment criteria and clinical guidance. It also sets up legal and implementation questions about how federal MAID law will interact with existing provincial practices and the 2021 statutory changes that previously addressed MAID and mental illness.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Bill C-218 rewrites the Criminal Code to exclude mental disorders as the sole basis for receiving medical assistance in dying. Rather than tinkering with thresholds or procedures, the bill inserts a categorical exclusion: when deciding whether someone has a 'grievous and irremediable medical condition' for MAID, a mental disorder cannot be treated as satisfying that condition on its own.
That is the operative change — eligibility is narrowed by statutory text, not by new regulatory penalty or new clinical pathways.
The bill anticipates a technical drafting issue created by the 2021 amendments to MAID and addresses it through coordinating provisions. If this bill's section comes into force before the relevant subsection of the 2021 Act, that subsection will be repealed; if the 2021 subsection comes into force first, this bill adds the exclusion as an amendment to the Criminal Code.
There is also a clause handling the rare case they come into force the same day. In short, the drafters ensured the exclusion appears in the Criminal Code regardless of sequencing.Noticeably absent from the bill are definitions and operational detail.
It does not define 'mental disorder' or alter other MAID eligibility criteria, safeguards, consent rules, or procedural timelines. It therefore leaves interpretive work to courts, regulators, and clinical guidance: how to treat mixed cases (where mental disorder coexists with physical illness), what evidence establishes that a condition is not solely psychiatric, and how assessors document their findings.Because the bill changes eligibility but not penalties or administrative mechanisms, implementation will occur through clinical practice updates, provincial oversight instruments, and revisions to MAID assessment guidelines.
Health systems will need to reconcile the statutory exclusion with existing assessment tools and with obligations to provide or refer for mental-health and suicide-prevention care. The law's interaction with professional college rules, provincial coverage decisions, and possible litigation will drive much of the next-stage change.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill replaces subsection 241.2(2.1) of the Criminal Code to state in plain language that a mental disorder is not a 'grievous and irremediable medical condition' for the purposes of MAID eligibility.
It contains coordinating clauses tied to 'An Act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying),' chapter 2 of the Statutes of Canada, 2021, to ensure the exclusion appears in the Criminal Code regardless of which provision comes into force first.
The bill does not define 'mental disorder' or provide guidance on mixed cases where psychiatric and non‑psychiatric conditions coexist, leaving those interpretive questions to regulators, courts, and clinical guidance.
The change affects eligibility only — it does not add criminal offences, change consent or capacity rules, or alter MAID procedural safeguards that remain in the Criminal Code and regulations.
Implementation will rely on updated assessment practices, provincial and territorial policies, and MAID oversight bodies revising guidance rather than on a federal regulatory regime created by this bill.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Explicit exclusion: mental disorder cannot alone justify MAID
Section 1 replaces subsection 241.2(2.1) with a concise exclusion: 'a mental disorder is not a grievous and irremediable medical condition.' That textual change narrows statutory eligibility by removing psychiatric illness as a sole basis for MAID. Practically, assessors must now determine whether an applicant's grievous and irremediable condition is attributable to non‑psychiatric causes or is not solely psychiatric before concluding eligibility. The provision does not elaborate on borderline situations, so operational detail will emerge through guidance and adjudication.
Defines the other Act referenced for coordination
This subsection identifies the 'other Act' as the 2021 statute that previously amended MAID provisions. Naming that Act frames the coordinating rules that follow and signals the bill's intent to supersede or integrate with the 2021 amendments. The identification matters because the rest of section 2 activates only in relation to that specific legislative text; it is a drafting device to manage two overlapping federal changes to MAID law.
Sequencing and fallback rules to reconcile with 2021 MAID changes
These paragraphs are mechanical but consequential. They say: if this bill's exclusion comes into force before the 2021 subsection, then that 2021 subsection is repealed; if the 2021 subsection comes first, this bill inserts the exclusion into the Criminal Code after subsection (2); if both take effect the same day, the 2021 subsection is treated as coming first and this bill's insertion follows. The drafters built these branches to avoid inconsistent text in the Criminal Code. The practical effect is a single, operative exclusion in the Code no matter sequencing, but they do not address transitional questions like applicants caught mid‑assessment when the change occurs.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on this topic across all five countries.
Explore this topic in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- People with mental disorders as their sole serious condition — they become legally ineligible for MAID, which proponents see as protecting vulnerable individuals and directing them toward mental‑health and suicide‑prevention services.
- Advocacy groups and policymakers focused on suicide prevention and expanded mental‑health supports — the bill strengthens statutory support for preventing MAID being used as a response to psychiatric suffering.
- Clinicians and institutions that have conscientious objections to providing MAID for psychiatric conditions — the statutory exclusion reduces legal and ethical uncertainty for these providers about whether to assess or provide MAID in such cases.
Who Bears the Cost
- Patients with severe, treatment‑resistant psychiatric suffering who regard MAID as relief — they lose a statutory route to assisted dying and will need to pursue other legal or clinical options, potentially facing prolonged suffering.
- Clinicians and MAID assessors — they must revise assessment practices, documentation, and training to reflect the categorical exclusion and to handle mixed‑condition cases, increasing administrative and clinical burdens.
- Provincial and territorial health systems and mental‑health services — they may face additional demand for intensive psychiatric care, counselling, and suicide‑prevention services without accompanying federal implementation funding.
- MAID oversight bodies and courts — they will carry the interpretive and adjudicative workload as questions about the exclusion's scope, timing, and interaction with existing case law and standards come forward.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is between protecting people with mental disorders from premature or coerced death and respecting the autonomy of those who experience intolerable, treatment‑resistant psychiatric suffering; the bill resolves that conflict by categorical exclusion, which reduces risk for some but simultaneously denies a legal avenue of relief to others without resolving the hard clinical and resource questions that underlie those cases.
The bill solves one drafting problem — it makes the exclusion explicit — but it creates a set of implementation and interpretive issues. First, the statute does not define 'mental disorder' or address comorbidity, so assessors will confront hard line‑drawing questions: when is suffering 'solely' psychiatric, and how should evidence be marshalled to show non‑psychiatric contributors to a grievous and irremediable condition?
Those questions are clinical as much as legal, and answers will vary across provinces and professional colleges.
Second, the coordinating clauses neatly avoid textual conflict with the 2021 MAID amendments but leave transitional gaps. The bill makes no procedural provision for applicants mid‑assessment when the exclusion takes effect, nor does it set out recordkeeping, notice, or review mechanisms tied to the change.
That omission shifts the burden to regulators, colleges, and courts to design fair transitions. Finally, the bill narrows eligibility without creating parallel access to enhanced mental‑health supports or specifying funding, so public systems will likely absorb increased demand, and the resulting capacity constraints could frustrate the policy goal of prioritizing treatment over assisted death.
There's more to this law than the bill.
Codify Laws traces every connection across the legislative lifecycle.