First, with regard to the regulators, they are the best situated to make the assessment of their readiness. It doesn't surprise me that they say that they're ready, because they were ready before, as I said. I would agree with that analysis of their need to be ready.
In terms of the MDRC, I think it is really important to understand its mandate. Its mandate is not compliance. It doesn't do assessments for compliance. It is not empowered to make findings of non-compliance with the law. It also doesn't aim for consensus. It discusses, and the reports include comments.
One thing I would urge is caution when you receive these reports and are reading them and then comparing them to what is seen in the media about them. Notice the fact that the reports will expressly say, “We are not making findings.” They have different people expressing their views—a negative view on a particular case, for example—and then you'll see that represented in the media as a finding of the MDRC. That's just not true; that's not how it works. That's an expression of opinion by the person who said it in that committee hearing, and they're saying it again in the media. Be very cautious about what the MDRC is actually doing.
It can perform a very important function, because we should be looking at everything. We should be talking about the complex cases. We should be trying to figure out how clinical practice should evolve in the face of all of the complexities.