Ms Marie O'Shea:

Absolutely. We could have it. To change it from mandatory to advisory, I was looking at the findings in the UnPAC study. The respondents in that did not see a personal benefit but could envisage it being of benefit to other people. In that context, perhaps somebody would reassured. Again, we are in the context of the unknown here, but perhaps somebody would feel a bit reassured if they were in front of the GP and coming across as a little uncertain. In those circumstances, GPs inform me they advise patients they have time to consider it up to a certain point and decide whether they want to proceed. It is important to keep it in the contract with the GPs that there is a payment for the first visit and second visit. One would not want to see that altered. Maybe some people would feel comforted by hearing the law states they can have a reflection period. Maybe that is something that will help people.

It possibly is not necessary but it is a bit of "test and see". Hopefully there will be changes to the legislation. There should be another independent review in three years' time, just to look at things again to make sure the legislation is operating in a manner that is consistent with best practice and with how people are experiencing using the system.