It's extremely difficult to comment in relation to that case, because of what I said about the MDRC and it not being a finding. They don't have all the facts in front of them. They're not making statements in order to make findings of fact about the case, so it's hard. I can't say what would have been better, because I don't know that what's being described is accurate.
However, do people need more? I think we have the guidance. We have the training program. We have the fundamental clinicians' obligation to do only that which they're capable of doing. They have an obligation to follow the law, which requires this careful analysis of capacity and voluntariness.
The final thing I would say, going back to the point about trust, is that clinicians take this extremely seriously. They are very careful, because they don't want to provide MAID to someone for whom something could be done such that they will no longer want MAID. That is actually a very important safeguard in our system, and it was recognized by Justice Smith at the trial level in Carter that we already trust clinicians with so much, so why would we suddenly say they're not trustworthy to ensure that they do careful assessments and so on? They do palliative sedation. They withhold and withdraw life-sustaining treatment. They do all these things without one iota of the oversight and regulation of MAID. It really throws a hand grenade into medical practice to suggest that we don't have enough, based on what we have.