That reminds me that on page 57 of the report, you make it clear that the court didn't limit its decision, as Quebec did, to terminal illness but went beyond that. I wonder if you could tell us more about the boundaries you might suggest for the terms that are used in the Carter decision.
For example, do you see a need to define the terms “grievous” and “irremediable”, or would it be preferable simply to leave it to the courts to pour meaning into those terms over time?