Yes. That's interesting, but I suppose in the case of gunshot wounds, that is a case in which the harm has been done, right? In the case of ongoing abuse to a person, yes, that's a case in which you're preventing harm. You can also imagine cases in which someone had been shot, maybe in the context of gang violence, and they didn't want the reporting to be involved, so they were less likely to come forward to the hospital.
There are some risks, I suppose, but on balance, society has decided to have that mandatory reporting in that case. It's an interesting moral question and dilemma not tackled by this bill, but I think it's worth considering.
Do any of the other witnesses want to weigh in on the question of possible reporting requirements?
If that's a no, that's okay. I'll cede the rest of my time. Thank you.