Thank you very much.
If the panel agrees, I just have one very short question for Mr. Arvay.
Mr. Arvay, thank you very much for your testimony today. It was helpful. I have one question, and it's related to an issue Mr. Rankin brought up and an example you provided. It's a bit of a different question, because I understand very clearly your belief that the drafting as it is now is not charter-compliant. There have been many witnesses at this point who have brought up using self-starvation and self-dehydration so somebody would then stumble into the definition as a result of their own purposeful actions. Whether we agree to drop all of these definitions and go back to the original Supreme Court one, or we stick with the current one—and I understand you think it's not charter-compliant—would it be constitutional for us to amend the bill so that some of these purposeful actions would not allow them to have medically assisted dying because of their decision to starve, or become dehydrated, or do anything else to demean themselves and cause them to stumble into this state? Would that be constitutional?