 You mentioned the point of Attic, so, Daniel. Thank you, Patrick. Yes, indeed. We could almost have a chorus where the two of us would be talking about things, Jacques on the economic side, and I would talk on the ethical side. They're very, very interlinked. So I'll try, I'll make three points. I have three parts at my very short presentation. One I'll say a few general things about ethics. Then I will say a few things about why technology within the healthcare, within healthcare changes things. And finally, I will try and show why ethics and technology at this point don't go very well together and what we could possibly, why we would want to change that. So ethics is important in healthcare. Now, not for the simple reason that, you know, people have a human right to health and that therefore it's our individual and social duty to provide this healthcare. Ethicists are not around to belabor the obvious. Ethics comes in whenever the path forward is anything but obvious as the philosopher Joseph Raaz said, ethics seeks to give substance to the general category of the good. Now this sounds very philosophical and abstract, but it means that all these issues that we've just heard of are issues which raise ethical issues, difficult issues that need to be slowly but surely belabored. So why is ethics central to healthcare in very general terms? Well, because on the receiving end are people who singly and collectively have a lot at stake, are a captive market and are vulnerable. When you're sick, you're vulnerable. And because all along the chain that provides healthcare the workers and stakeholders, we've heard about some of them, that have ethical exigencies and put ethical constraints of their own. Yet ethics and healthcare is difficult to conceptualize because health is a highly consensious good subject to variable and often conflicting interpretations because health and healthcare depend on economic, political, social and mostly cultural factors. And because there is no direct route from principles to practices on the ground. And finally, because the ethical demands of the different stakeholders are not always aligned. Ethics is a lot about dilemmas. Ethics is also in the sector of healthcare hard to implement because on the providing end in both public and private arenas, the budgets are enormous as are the opportunities for enrichment because our understanding of the biological and sociological determinants of health are still patchy, raising issues of permissible risk because research and clinic are intermingled yet pursue different agendas, raising serious conflict of interest issues. In fact, the whole field of bioethics arose because of these conflicting views of research and the clinic. Finally, because the digital age thus governance turns governance into a global affair. So I come to my second point technology which is in the process of bringing about a sea change in healthcare, both and that's absolutely obvious as direct benefits for people, but also and that's maybe less stressed as tools for democratic participation and ethical debate. But technology also opens the door to entirely novel practices which raise equally novel ethical issues and the more powerful the technology, the more areas it can penetrate, the more outlandish and possibly transgressive the practices. I don't know if I have time to give just a few examples very quickly. Think of genetic engineering, the issue of germline modification, the funding and ownership of very rare diseases, the issue of enhancement and the threat to fairness and equal treatment. Second example, the commodification of DNA sequencing raises a series of ethical conundrums bearing on privacy violations and incidental findings when you find out that you have a genetic defect and maybe your kin also have that defect and that wasn't planned. You were not expecting that piece of news. Patients consent for therapeutic or palliative use of sensors, cameras, tracking devices, robots, raise issues for non or partially competent patients. I'm thinking especially of the agent. E-Health can lead to the accumulation of the underwater amounts of personal information on some or all members of the population with the attendant risk of surveillance and control or unequal protection and coverage. Generalizations of systems of E-Health can cause increased inequalities either because the underprivileged lack access or the minimum skills to navigate the system or because only the more opulent sectors of the health system can afford the best up-to-date information and apps or again because personal face-to-face care might increasingly become a privilege. You've all heard of progress in intensive care technologies that lead to insoluble end-of-life problems. The UK has at present 150,000 comatose patients that it doesn't know what to do with except just wait and see. That's a lot, 150,000 patients. Progress in neuroimaging lead to intractable problems with comatose patients. And finally, a whole set of concerns arise from the enormous costs involved in the deployment of digital systems, medical equipment such as surgical robots, discovery of drugs for rare disease or vaccines against new viruses. These issues cannot be settled in advance nor can they be put off once the technology is entrenched. See Facebook too late. They must be resolved on the fly as new possibilities arise, new expectations crystallize, new values emerge. Each step requires both broad consultation and time to be so to speak ethically digested and both are lacking today. Democratic consultation. At present, the development, the responsibility for developing new technologies rests on a minuscule group of people with exclusive access to knowledge, power and money and who answer to virtually no one. And as far as time, the ongoing competition for dominance between inventors, entrepreneurs, mega corporations and countries does not give a chance for the new forms of good to take shape. So the technology, the technological race must slow down while the structural conditions and effective tools of democratic control emerge locally and globally. Now asking technology to slow down is a little bit like asking a tiger to go vegan. Yet they're hopeful signs. There is pushback to the meeting such as this one. There are many initiatives around the world, both official and legal and constitutional and private that are trying to slow down this race and to orient it on the fly towards better treatment of healthcare. Thank you. Thank you, Daniel. It was a pleasure and insightful and inspiring. I really enjoy, I catch the technology being a tiger getting vegan. So I'm really good to see it. We'll make the transition and it takes on the fly.