Thank you, Mr. Rankin.
In terms of a waiting period in the situation of someone who has suddenly been injured and who feels as though they don't want to go on any further, I would echo what Professor Downie had to say a few meetings ago, which was that informed consent law and the practices that doctors already use in determining whether someone has the capacity to make a decision and whether they are consenting in an informed way already deal with that. It's open for doctors to say, “You know what? I'm not sure you are quite grasping the situation you're in right now” and to use their own judgment, according to the authority that's regulating them, to work with a patient on those issues. We don't see it as being a problem. Conversely, we see putting a waiting period in place as having the potential to create a lot of harm.
The second question had to do with the second doctor and whether there was telemedicine and whether we could make this easy and maybe have an app or something that one could use. We think that regardless of the technology, regardless of whether you can put together a facility that would allow a second doctor from a big city to provide a second opinion for someone living in rural community, it's just inconsistent with other end-of-life practices to have it as a requirement. Sure, if the doctor feels that he or she would benefit from the judgment of another professional, then by all means we think it's open for a doctor to seek that out, as doctors already do for other end-of-life decisions. For us it's more about keeping this consistent with other end-of-life practices than it is about the technology.