I just wanted to be clear on that.
Second, I frankly don't understand this amendment at all.
We tried to put forward that there should be consultation with a person who has expertise. That was defeated. The committee did not accept that this was needed or necessary.
Now we're talking about consulting with someone with expertise outside of the two attending people. Why aren't we just consulting with that third party? It makes no sense to me that either expertise in some nature.... “Expertise” isn't even defined, so we're not necessarily talking about a specialist. We're talking about someone with expertise in that condition. There can be people who have a lesser designation than specialist who have expertise in a certain condition. Maybe they have a lot of patients with that condition, or whatever. With the new language, it can be a doctor or nurse practitioner, etc., with that expertise.
However, if we're going to consult with them, I don't understand why there wasn't support before for consulting with them and having them as one of the two people. This makes no sense to me. Again, by doing it outside those who are tending to the patient, how is it conveyed back to the patient? How is that dealt with? There are no specifics. We'd be relying now on a second-hand conveyance of the expertise. If you can consult with someone with expertise, then that should be one of the two people dealing directly with the patient.
I'm not in favour.