Words matter. Words are one of the strongest ways in which we communicate. We use words to express every human emotion. When words are used passionately and honestly, they can inspire us to greatness. Motivate us to dare mighty deeds. To, in the name of humankind, be open to exploring the greatest mystery facing us, that is, our very existence.

Close your eyes. Now, embrace the rapture you feel when the most special person in your life holds you in his/her arms, looks you in your eyes and says, “I love you.” Revel not just in those words, but the feelings and emotions they evoke.

Contrarily, words can also be used to inflict the deepest, darkest scars on a person’s soul. Words can cause such pain, such rage … such defeat, that they can push us prematurely closer to our graves.

Again, close your eyes. And try to imagine how you may feel when the most special person in your life looks you in the eyes and says, “I do NOT love you.” One word. One small word. One word changes everything. It changes feelings, emotions. That one small word changes … life.

Recently, end of life issues in the mental health community have come to the public’s attention, not just domestically, but internationally. Are physicians in the Netherlands prescribing death-inducing medications for autism? Is the UK government allowing life support measures to be removed from a child against a parent’s and their doctor’s wishes? Canada’s recent decision to delay until 2027, end of life measures for persons whose primary diagnosis is a mental health issue. And of course, here in the U.S., end of life options for persons suffering from severe and enduring anorexia.

And yet for these great emotional debates and issues, we cannot even agree which term of art to use … Medical-Aid-in-Dying (MAiD) or Physician Assisted Suicide (PAS). Each phrase engenders very different thoughts and feelings. Granted, this was not much of a debate when MAiD was first being considered for biologically based diseases for which the medical community did not have viable cures. It is now.

Dr. Matthew Wynia, director of the University of Colorado’s Center for Bioethics and Humanities, states: “There is a significant, a meaningful difference between someone seeking to end their life because they have a mental illness, and someone seeking to end their life who is going to die in the very near future anyway.”

As Lee Corso, a college football pundit and legend is fond of saying, “Not so fast my friend!”

Now, a once relatively clear line is being blurred.

In the United States, ten states and the District of Columbia allow patients to receive life ending medication. However, among these states, I could locate no provision specifically including, or excluding mental health issues. 

Instead, the statutory language focuses on the requirement of a “competent, terminally ill patient.” A vague, ambiguous term. When a person’s life hangs in the balance, there are few things as egregious as including terms which are vague, subjective to numerous interpretations and which are not readily definable.

So, what is the difference, if any, between MAiD and PAS?

Some health advocates and medical professionals insist that a terminally ill patient with a recognized, biologically based, somatic disease taking medication to hasten the end of their life is doing something fundamentally different than suicide. The term “medical aid in dying,” they say, is meant to emphasize that someone with a terminal diagnosis is not choosing whether to die, but how to die. Their death is immediate and inevitable.

Anita Hannig, an anthropologist at Brandeis University and author of the book, “The Day I Die: The Untold Story of Assisted Dying in America,” stated, “A phrase like “medical aid in dying” would reassure patients that they were taking part in a process that was regulated and medically sanctioned. Medicine has that legitimating power, like it or not, that really removes a lot of the stigma.”

Now, look at the language used by Ms. Hannig.

A process that was regulated.

A process that was medically sanctioned.

I would add, a process focused on a biologically based, somatic diseases, thoroughly researched and studied. Diseases in which relatively objective findings, treatment regiments and outcomes had been thoroughly vetted and are considered reliable. A disease, which in an advanced state, medical science cannot effectively combat nor cure.

For this, yes, Medical Aid in Dying may very well be accurate, understandable and compassionate.

But for circumstances in which a mental health issue is the primary diagnosis? Particularly, Severe and Enduring Anorexia? A legion of questions abound.

When did Anorexia become terminal? Does the medical community even have a remotely accurate understanding of the manner in which eating disorders impact the brain? And if so, why haven’t effective, biologically based treatments been researched, studied and implemented?

For that matter, regarding eating disorders, we also know the following:

There are no generally accepted standards of care. The “experts” in the community cannot even agree about the most effective medical and mental health interventions to treat this deadly mental health illness. For that matter, should anorexia even be classified primarily as a mental health illness?

There is no effective collaboration with any other medical or mental health community.

Private equity companies have been allowed to dictate residential “standards of care” and the way this mental health illness is treated. Emphasizing profits over patient safety. Even a former CEO of a residential treatment center is now admitting to this reality.

There are no pharmaceutical drugs which have been specifically researched, trialed and then approved to treat eating disorders. The drugs being used today were all designed to be used for other mental health and medical issues.

If the statistics can be believed, the mortality rate for eating disorders is worsening.

It is with this background, despite these harsh facts, that some people are attempting to legitimize end of life options for Severe and Enduring Anorexia.

Seriously. What criteria and protocol would be utilized to establish that which constitutes the highest level of treatment care before patients are welcomed into the warm embrace of death? Some pro PAS professionals may even look upon death as not being a failure or even a bad outcome.

How many years would a patient have to be afflicted with Severe and Enduring Anorexia before a death protocol is appropriate for them?

What objective testing exists to determine brain atrophy? Testing which would give more objective evidence showing that a patient either has or does not have the capacity to make life and death decisions?

As it is, no state has set forth any minimum, objective biological standards which must be met before a death protocol is made available for patients suffering from mental health issues.

With many biological based, somatic diseases such as cancer, objective testing and decades of research support a medical finding that death is inevitable. And as a compassionate society, Medical Aid in Dying, with effective oversight and clear protocols, very well may be in humanity’s best interest.

However, with Physician Assisted Suicide for mental health issues, because of the dearth of medically objective criteria, the diagnosis of “terminal” is based not so much on whether a patient will die, but how they will die.  

That patient’s death may not be pending, may not occur soon and may not be inevitable. That is the heart of Physician Assisted Suicide. Besides subjective criteria experienced by some mental health providers, there appears to be no medically recognized protocols or standards supporting those person’s views.  That is not and should not be acceptable.

For the treatment of Severe and Enduring Anorexia, the brightest and the best medical and mental health doctors cannot collaborate and come up with treatment standards utilizing the latest technological and science-based knowledge and innovation. There are no protocols to preserve life.

When the community cannot come up with and implement a legitimate, generally accepted protocol for life, how can anyone seriously consider a protocol for death?