I'd be happy to, and I will reiterate that I think it's wholly inadequate. I'll be stronger in saying that.
I think we could have gotten a better use out of our $3.3 million that went for that. However, pejorative comments aside, it's something where, when I look at that, I am looking to see if this helps the assessors in any either evidenced or reasonable way to tease apart things like irremediability. As I said, it's not a question of whether a situation is irremediable; it's whether we can predict it to be. That's the whole point. We're making predictions in advance of giving someone death when they're not dying. There is nothing in there that helps us predict irremediability.
The other one is suicidality. This one, actually, I have to say literally shocked me. I am looking at it right now, but the module on suicidality consists of 10 pages of which five slides have content and a four and a half minute audio clip.
There is nothing in there about, for example, the 2:1 female-to-male ratio of psychiatric euthanasia in the places that get it. There is nothing in there about suicidal risk of marginalized populations. They simply make comments like this: "Managing suicidality is something most clinicians learned at some point in their training.... The general principles of managing suicidality apply in the MAiD context as well, whether the person is making a request under track one or two." I don't even know what that means. It doesn't provide guidance. But it does dangerously tell people that they think they can separate suicidality from a psychiatric MAID request, and no evidence supports that.