Thanks very much.
The whole issue of consent is one where all of us feel we ought to be able to do better. What people think they consented to sometimes isn't what is really on offer, and people aren't necessarily told in detail about the real risk-benefit ratio or some of the stories.
With the opportunity to set up a new agency, do you think we should go further in this particularly difficult area, where patients can be particularly vulnerable and particularly prone to charlatans and other things that have a very tiny risk of success, and take this opportunity to do a better job?
I think some of you have heard me say at committee before that I think the Toronto Medical-Legal Society looked at some American models, where people had to look at a CD of people who had the procedure and everything went well, and people had to look at a CD of people who had the procedure and things went terribly wrong. Until you actually understand both sides, you can't really give informed consent. Do you think this could or should be an opportunity for us to go further on this?
If you wouldn't mind, I would like you to describe what happened in the public consultation on this. In examining this, do you feel that the kinds of infertile couples who we didn't hear from enough at this committee were part of the consultation? Could you also describe the process for public consultation that brought you to this and whether or not you think it is sufficient?
I really believe public consultation isn't supposed to be only occupational therapy. They said we're supposed to have public consultations. Can we show the people who bothered to participate in this that changes were made to what you had on offer before the public consultation? How did it change after you'd listened to people? Are you comfortable that you listened to enough people and to people who are the most vulnerable in this file?