I think as a general matter, clearly when it's widely recognized that there is an area where that the services are not sufficient, it would make sense to have more services available and for those services to be better resourced.
Let me just note, though, that when we're talking about MAID in cases in which the sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness, these are likely going to be cases that have not responded to treatment. If you look even at the regime that is in place now for cases in which the person's death is not reasonably foreseeable, and then you think about what you will hear, inevitably, from the expert panel about additional safeguards, I think what you'll start to see is a picture of access to MAID for people who have a significant mental illness and there's been an extensive review of all of the treatments and supports and interventions over a long period of time.
These are more likely going to be individuals who might be considered for MAID who have had the benefit of an extensive interaction with psychiatric care modalities. These are not the people for whom all of a sudden some newly diagnosed bipolar disorder or something like that appears, and a month later they show up on the doorstep of a MAID practitioner with a request for MAID.
Anyway, the expert panel will talk in their expert fashion—not my vernacular version—and will describe all of this. I think these are related issues, but they are somewhat different issues: the general availability of mental health and wellness services and the situation and the access to treatment for someone with mental illness who gets to the point where they're seeking MAID.