Sure. Thank you.
As it is, this bill proposes a number of restrictions and hurdles that are not the case anywhere else in life-and-death decisions in medicine—decisions that are made every day to withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment, decisions that are made every day that involve death by some action or intervention taken. Whether it's administering something or yanking something out and taking it away, an action is taken and people die. We don't do this for anything else.
The courts have been clear. It was argued, but it was not accepted that there was any ethical distinction between assistance in dying as contemplated in Carter and these other forms of treatment that result in death. We thus see no justification for putting in some kind of state decision-making process. Whether or not it's actually government officials, if they are using authority delegated from Parliament, they are making a decision using the state's authority.
Putting state decision-making in the way of patient decision-making just makes no sense. It will increase delay; it will intimidate people potentially; it's just bad policy, and it doesn't make sense in the context of the medical profession.