All I can really share with the committee is that there are different ways of reading and interpreting the Supreme Court ruling. Some ways focus on the dictionary definition of the key terms and some ways may focus more on a contextual reading of the case. For instance, there's a variety of places in the court's ruling where they talk about physician-assisted dying in a manner that compares it to other end-of-life decision-making, so that might suggest to some that they were thinking in more of an end-of-life context.
There are the words in paragraph 127 where they talk about the ruling being responsive to the facts of the case and not to any other circumstances, so the facts of Kay Carter's and Gloria Taylor's medical situations may be of interest to you.
I think it's a very good question, one for which I can't really provide a concrete answer except to say that it's subject to being interpreted in a variety of different ways. I guess I would bring you back to what the court said was really Parliament's task, which is to make the tough policy choices. I think the court understood that it wasn't its role to be legislating on behalf of Canadians. It was deciding a very specific constitutional question that was before it, namely, whether the prohibition in an absolute form was constitutional. It may be just as important for you to consider the full range of information that is before you, as it is to try to decipher with precision what it was the court was saying.