I'm pleased to respond to that difficult issue. There is an alcohol-related liver disease pilot program that is about to be launched, a three-year pilot, which will tell us whether or not there's evidence for a better policy than the six-month rule, the six-month rule being the one that is used internationally. It is the most common rule.
We're all happy that Ms. Saunders was assessed. In other words, the six-month rule does not stop someone from being assessed. They are not just automatically not put on the waiting list. She was hospitalized. She was assessed. She received medical treatment and went home. She didn't need a liver transplant. The outcome of that situation was a happier one.
On the six-month rule, there is no scientific evidence that six months is the right number. In some cases, it might be two months. In the case of other people, it might be two years. This pilot program, which is being supported by the province, will give us evidence as to whether, when the individuals receive the right therapies and support from social workers and addiction specialists, the six-month rule may no longer be applicable. We'll have evidence as to whether there's a different, logical rule.