My colleague Sonu Gaind M.D., past president of the Canadian Psychiatric Association, published the above [titled] article this week in the Psychiatric Times.
In it, he argues that there is no such thing as an “end stage” psychiatric disorder anywhere in the world’s literature, nor can any clinician accurately identify which psychiatric patients are actually “irremediable” or “untreatable.” In fact, he explains that postulating this construct is a calculated strategy by those specifically trying to open physician assisted suicide and euthanasia to the mentally ill, by harnessing buzzwords used in statutes permitting these procedures for other medical illnesses. Similar, is the role of proffering the term “palliative psychiatry."
He also notes “widespread evidence" that expanding eligibility for these procedures beyond truly verifiable end-of-life-conditions (which psychiatric conditions are NOT) risks marginalized populations, who have lesser access to state-of-the-art psychiatric treatment.
Dr. Gaind cites a recent symposium of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) that was curated to be highly biased, where it was argued: “it is not our role to set policy but to follow shifting public views” on this matter.
Dr. Gaind rejects such passivity and acquiescence. He asserts that we medical experts and our professional societies “are charged with ensuring public views and policy are informed by medical evidence.” As such, organizations like the APA should take a strong public educational and lobbying stance to refute the idea of irremediable, non-terminal, futile psychiatric conditions, especially as so many other factors govern why psychiatric patients might be making limited progress in improvement or recovery.
Click here to view original post.