Several themes arose in the responses about Step 1: • that the definition of terminal illness proposed should be changed to include those with conditions which seriously affect a person’s quality of life but may not be considered to be terminal (see as examples anonymous response ID 175143463; individual response Joanne Howe, ID 178999634; and Easy Read response 3); • that prognoses are often uncertain and inaccurate (see as an example Living and Dying Well, ID 181443000); • the relationship between the two doctors should be clarified and/or at least one should have a historic relationship with the terminally ill person (see as examples the response from Peter Greenaway Hollings, ID 180027793 and the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, non-Smart Survey, response 14,017); • that a declaration should be able to be made at an earlier time, when a person who is not yet considered to be near the end of their life but is mentally competent (and may not be at a later stage) – often referred to in responses as “living wills” (see as examples anonymous response ID 180122692 and Easy Read response 9); 29 • clarity is needed on how the mental capacity assessments will be made, with some calling for a full mental health assessment to be required for all undertaking Step 1 (see as examples the responses by the Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care (ID 181456887) and Easy Read response 9); • clarity is required on how it can be assured that a person is not being pressured and/or coerced into choosing an assisted death (see as examples the response from an individual, P...