Again, that was a situation that I think emphasizes the need for donor screening.
In this particular case, there was one organ donor who basically was identified with a high-risk behaviour, a risk of transmitting disease. The decision was reached by the transplanting physician to go ahead and use the organs for transplant.
The media has reported that not all the recipients were made aware that their organ was at slightly higher risk. In media reports, one particular recipient went forward to say they were not given the opportunity to discuss the fact that their donor was at slightly higher risk.
As we've pointed out, within these regulations, which are under the Food and Drugs Act, there would be a requirement to discuss that the donor is at a slightly higher risk. But again it underlines and emphasizes that a negative test result does not always mean that the donor does not have an infection, and that those at higher risk must be identified and a discussion ensue between the transplanting physician and the potential recipient.
I think it just emphasizes exactly why we've put into regulations what we have, and the exceptional distribution and the importance of donor screening.
Thank you.