I'm sorry to interrupt you, but I don't have much speaking time and I'd like to give the others a chance to ask questions.
That was my first question.
You've seen the panel's report that issues recommendations supporting a number of precautionary principles, particularly with respect to suicidality. It clearly states that the assessor could not receive a request for medical assistance in dying from a person in crisis. Individuals with mental disorders who are in a period of crisis would therefore be disqualified.
Here is a quote from the panel's final report:
In any situation where suicidality is a concern, the clinician must adopt three complementary perspectives [when they become clear]: consider a person's capacity to give informed consent or refusal of care, determine whether suicide prevention interventions—including involuntary ones—should be activated, and offer other types of interventions which may be helpful to the person.
In this report, they were undeniably able to distinguish between people struggling with suicidality and recommendation 8.
I found the concept of consistency, which you mentioned, to be meaningful. In fact, I found it in the report.
Recommendation 8 states: “Assessors should ensure that the requester's wish for death is consistent...unambiguous and rationally considered during a period of stability, not during a period of crisis.”
The report also talks about durability over time. Multiple attempts are made.
Witnesses who have testified before the committee told us that, even in the case of so-called Track 2 or physical conditions, it's almost impossible to establish a clear and irremediable prognosis.