It would be wrong and irresponsible of us to stand in the way of such improvements in the next five or six years in the lives of people suffering from Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease and other forms of atrophy. The emotive argument is that we should do something because people are suffering. However, if we stand back from the issue, we can make a decision which can improve the quality of the lives of people suffering under the weight of such diseases and people who may be watching a loved one withering away through some form of atrophy. Therefore, we have no choice. It would be wrong and unjustifiable and the Minister would not be able to live with herself if she were to take a decision other than that which is proposed. She would be turning her back on her responsibility as an elected public representative to do her best for all people. People who make the case for the less well-off in society abide by it as a guiding principle. There are guiding principles in this case and no one needs to bury those principles in order to make progress.