I think that in the first instance, we should leave it to persons who are competent legally, and there are many people who are competent legally who are not over 21. I know there is legislation in British Columbia that specifically allows young teenagers to consent to medical care without consulting their parents, and that was specifically around the provision of birth control pills for young women. I have worked with many teenagers over the years and I have worked with a number who have been facing death, and I think they would be competent in the legal sense to consent to physician-assisted dying as they would be legally competent to agree to other kinds of medical care.
From a practical point of view, if you're dealing with a teenager, you ideally like to get the teenager and the parent to agree, because then you know you have the individual who has authority to agree to it, but I don't think that limiting this to adults.... Why would we want teenagers to suffer, but we're prepared to relieve adults of suffering? It makes no sense to me, and that's why I'm saying that the most controversial area—and this is certainly a controversy in Europe—is what to do with children who are suffering irremediable pain at the end of their lives. I'm not expecting your committee to deal with that other than to give it some thought, but I think limiting it to competent individuals would solve the concerns that I have around teenagers who may be legally competent.