Again, I have to simplify things sometimes. I know when I had shoulder surgery to repair my broken shoulder some three or four years ago, the first thing I did was go to my general practitioner. He didn't say that he was going to do the surgery. No, he sent me to a specialist.
When I think about this, again, for me it's very black and white. If we're talking about life and death, I don't know why there is even discussion around this table with regard to ensuring there is a specialist there to say, “Yes, this, indeed, is the ailment and, indeed, this person should have MAID”, because, again, my general practitioner didn't do the arthroscopic surgery for my shoulder. He sent me to a specialist.
Notwithstanding that, Madam Chair, if I went to that specialist I could also get a second opinion.
My point is, in death, why would we ever put this weight on a practitioner and not have a second opinion? This, to me, is about giving protection to our practitioners, but also giving the real-life story for the person who may or may not need MAID. If I don't know what I'm talking about, as a practitioner, I certainly don't want to be the one who says to administer MAID. If it's not my speciality, why would I do that?
Madam Chair, this is a very important amendment, and I will be supporting it.
Thank you.