so this evening i thought that we would start by reviewing what went on last week with the patient's choice and the life a death with dignity or position assisted suicide or even other names and i think we've all had many questions and so i asked senator lyons to if she would like to to come and sort of share her since she was there right there par it but just just to set the stage if you remember that the health and welfare committee voted voted the bill five zero jenny is on the health and welfare committee the judicia committee voted it down three one one meaning three people said no to it one said yes and one person was absent and so it it went to the recommendation and so now so to put this in perspective if if you are in favor of the bill and you're sitting there and the question is do we recommend judiciaries recommendation you say no you know and obviously vice versa so that that process was a lot like second reading of a bill where where this got to where somebody presents the bill there's a discussion a lot of questions and answers i don't know three hours of it maybe two and a half someone or something like that it and then there was the vote do we except the judiciary committee's recommendation and that vote was seventeen nose and thirteen yeses and so the so that the next thing then isn't so now since that wasn't the case now you can go to the buy that those called normal second reading now they interested him about this is that i was i was listening to a lot of this since i was home most the last week with my wife's after my wife surgery and it's like holy smally i don't remember something going on like this before and so i remember the secretary of state has a little booklet that they give out to kids how a bill becomes law and if which is it which is very good and you can go through it and you follow it and i mean any you get a good idea of what the process is unless you were following it for this process and then nothing things got all cloudy and everything so we are now at the point where we would be at what's called normal second reading of the bill and so i think i'll let you take over from came so that i could answer questions about this bill because i know it's a very concerned of many people and it was quite a torturous route to actually pass the bill over to the house it was an all day debate that we and we debated for three days total on the floor of the saddle on the end of life choices bill and after rejecting that judiciaries negative report then our bill was there and the bill that we passed out of the senate health and welfare committee was a bill modeled on what work on has done but improved a great deal so there were there are checks and balances are there were checks and balances and patient protections within the bill that would allow for record keeping at the department of health and for people to be reassured that any patient accessing end of life medicine to hasten and of life reassurances that that would be done effectively and adequately in addition to which the bill contains protections  for physicians who wrote the prescription and protections for family members who might be with patients when they actually decide to take the medication so we felt very good about the provisions of the bill itself having said that once that bill was on the floor the opponents worse still in opposition and so an amendment was offered a substitute amendment for our bill so in other words the bill that that any physician prescribing medication that would hasten death shall not be held responsible and that was the bill i mean that was the absence of the bill period so there were no patient protections there was nothing about offering patients palliative care there was nothing about collecting data and review with what we were doing as a state and so there was debate about that proposal so that was the second day so the second day was to debate whether or not that proposal would achieve the goals that we were interested in and certainly the opposition was interested in passing that i think they felt that it would have been so unlikable that it would be rejected just categorically that that was accepted so now we have a bill that we had worked on for a long time to have a public hearing we've had testimony that we had a bill of about twenty pages that bill was eliminated for a few paragraphs and that's what was debated the decision the first saw it that the new wording was limited to pain medication and can't and if the doctor told the person that if they took too much it could kill them than they would then the doctor took the medication which is a problem now i'm so so but it was it was very broad and if you have a medical license all you had to do was believe somebody was in the last six months of life and they didn't have to be your patient you could the prescription for them putting to that so it was narrowed in terms of the scope of the medications you could do but from very very broad otherwise and we were in this very peculiar situation where the proponents found that to be poison pill and the up on and now we're voting yes they were voting yes for something that was much hotter than what was on the table that they opposed it was very very strong so and the thought that the folks in the health and welfare committee but worked so hard on the original bill i think stayed true to the intent of the bill and stayed true to wanting to have a bill that would offer patient protections that it was and was being honest about hastening end of life when someone has six months so the folks who are against that bill and i think  think probably against any bill that would hasten for hastening of death an explicit they change their arguments you know so one day it was about not wanting to ha death that next day it was about allowing anyone to hasten their death regardless it because it became very confusing in the end the opposition to and of life choices were using the same arguments for supporting their amendment as someone who's pro choice would be using for abortion rights it became it was a very strange dynamic so but to make a long story short that which i want to i know you want me to do but the so that that poison pill as george has very well described it then was replaced with a further proposal of a man a substitute amendment that wasn't quite as poisonous poisonous and we voted to send that to the house i voted for that bill and i foetid for it as did others because we feel it's very important to have this issue be considered in both the house and the senate so we sent it over to the house it isn't as bad a proposal as the first poison pill but it is by no means something that i think we would like to have written into law so welcome to the world of the legislature it was three or four days of earnest debate there were many there were and not everyone in the senate spoke to the bill or to the amendments but many of us did and it was it was it was a long debate to say that but i'm i'm happy to answer questions and then george if you think you can clarify so so right now it passed the senate the senate sends it over to the house what the when the senate bill comes the house is it gets assigned to a committee just as if a representative had submitted a bill the decision which committee to assign it to is up to the speaker and he assigned it to the human services committee there was a lot of the usual speculation about where is he going to assign a this is going to go to dish erie first guarantee anything because it's obviously the chairs position to take it up but we will we will take it up it will not be taken up until after this magical crossover date that date that if you want to be sure that a bill that you pass in the house gets taken up by the senate in a certain year it has to be passed by a certain date and that date is the fifteenth not the friday after town meeting but a week later your schedule and so that's when it will happen i suspect it will happen very soon after the crossover date what will happen i don't know my hope and what what i will be personally working for is to amend this bill that comes from the senate to be very much like what was passed out of the senate health and welfare committe so can i can i just i want to talk from the senate perspective from a more of the lay person perspective and now that george weigh in from medical ethics perspective yes right now horrible pain made the physician might say well if i give you more fees for this acute pain it may cause your death so that and that does happen so that's that's in medical i think says that's kind of a double effect morphemes been given for pay this death someone who's on a chronic morphine drip may or may not i see that as a you know terminal sedation there's also we know that in the one nine hundred eighty s historically there were there were court cases where it was determined that you can pull to some people and they can die there also we know that people can refuse food and water so terminal dehydration terminal starvation so those are all accepted and of life choices for patients and you know possibly families if someone is  or power of attorney or an advanced directive so we so the opponents were saying physicians can already do this so why don't we just say physicians can prescribe medication and warn patients that if they take too much of this it will cause death and let it be that said there are so many other considerations we felt that were key including the need to have it and then at the end of life six months to live as sure in their patients were either in palliative care or has some care console that the person who is making this decision to actually willfully consume medication would be of sound mind or capable of making that decision and  that it was a it was a thoughtful decision so that the patient would asked not once but twice and with some time in between to think it through slightly different from someone who is really in it and at the end of a disease process and then having excruciating pain and having terminal sedation for someone who is at the end of the disease process and saying i'm not going to eat or drink any more can't tolerate so  we made a distinction between that deliberate consumption of medicine and something like a terminal sedation or terminal dehydrat and the folks who had put that amendment you know were feeling that oh this is we do we treat this any differently from terminal sedation or terminal to hydration it's most of the people and work on for example choose to to hasten the end of their lives not for pain pain is like fifth on the list is for quality of life it's it's for not being able to do the things that they used to be able to do is for not being able to cope with with the medical treatment that's going on so that they have you know maybe they have to physicians and folks who have worked with over three thousand cases of dying patients and they said you know these are patients who have they have a lot of anxiety lot of concern and having the medication in their hands may be sufficient to reassure them so that they can continue to live so not everyone who receives the medication as we learned from oregon experience not everyone who receives that medication actually uses it so it isn't all about pain it's about being reassured it's about quality of life decisions and it's also about wanting to have the security of family and knowing that you know i'm making this decision for myself and i'm going to seventy five out of the seventy seven people who utilize the medication in oregon last year inform their families two of them or two of the the others who were in nursing homes and they didn't have families so it the the use of the access to end of life medication see does two things for what we learn is that it encourages folks to be in a palliative care setting because and we've seen that happen in oregon where there's an increased support services for patients and it encourages them to bring their family into their decision making  about last time was not in the the basic bill this year i will try to put it in on the house side and what that is is that a lot of the talks don't want any parts of this the majority of docs and last when i surveyed them were in favor but a distinct minority would participate and those are mostly primary care docs and that makes sense long term long term relationship with the patient that kind of thing  but an awful lot of us just don't want the entirety of the medical freshman vermont to be to be painted as part of the system and so what what i am looking for is to have a special endorsement on your license to prescribe narcotics you have to have a d e a license you know just to for my medical license does not allow you to prescribe narcotics you need to special indorsement and i would like to the board of medical practice in vermont to issue a special indorsement to people who are going to participate in this other docs wouldn't have that and with that would come the requirement for additional training continuing medical education  s that would make sure that insurance companies would continue to provide palliative care as part of their their options because one of the problems in oregon is that they may tell you sorry end of life care over the next six months of hospice is not good we're not going to cover it but we will cover suicide so so that's actually  the fact of the matter is that when people enter into pel to care they make a decision to no longer treat the underlying illness little we're going to hospice where when they enter hospice care physic one of her physicians recommended another drug that was very expensive and it wasn't proven to be effective for exactly what she had and her cover that drug was denied under her insurance under medicare but after and the the letter that she got was really very badly written after a review of that they went back and she was allowed to take that drug so there was there have been some misconceptions about the fact that it was her shuras that turned her down but it really was not and she really she did alternately get the drug and she she died i forget how many not long after but it but it's not a denial it's possible that our medicaid program in the state to be becoming a restored problem that it's much less expensive to have somebody check out then to go on that well you know that's that's a concern that many people have expressed lives and of the one thousand and fifty six hundred fifty three of actually utilized that over a period of fifteen years at the end the numbers haven't changed this been pretty flat and it's been you know fifty percent men fifty percent women in the in the committee room or something that we definitely do discuss and take up if typically what you do on something like this if you ask your legislative council you know convinced me that you just don't go out there and i don't think that they had any one that has received the medication that we're resident for for a long time enough of in the state or palliative care physicians who are certified the very far between and it's not it's probably not absolutely necessary to have that level of specialist i think i don't think george is talking about that level of specialty but rather people who are willing to participate and learn about how to handle this particular situation well of course you know there's a if it's if you know there's going to be a lot of conversation going back and forth and it there may well be a conference committee or or not you know so if if the bill gets to a place that is agreeable to a majority of folks in the sat then maybe it will have to go through the conference process that would be unusual but not unlikely and remember you know the first vote on whether to go forward with this bill or by rejecting the judiciary committee that was seventeen to thirty it became fifteen fifteen when the two but the vote was seventeen thirteen in favor of going forward with the bill which is probably very much like what will come out of the house so there's there's hope it will not end up in a conference committee because then who knows what comes up so i don't mean this to be the only topic tonight if you have other questions that you certainly may ask but you know feel free to ask about other things that you want to say anything george about now i can tell you what we're doing in the health care committee and we're spending an awful lot of time to the federally mandated but i guess i'm going to leave out thank you sunny thank you and see if you have any questions you know thank you for coming thanks thanks so the the federally mandated health care exchanges start in january first of next year and they will people will start purchasing insurance through these exchanges in october of this coming year so we've been spending an awful lot of effort around that it's good it's a mammoth undertaking so i hope it comes off our right but one of the things is that because for my dad has very good state programs for relatively low income folks the federal law does provide subsidies both for your premiums and for at certain levels of income for your car sharing but that's still for the people on the vermont programs now it's a significant increase in price and we know that what keeps people from buying insurance is the level of the premiums and so we've been working hard on no to fund that but but how extensive and additional subsidy to state will provide so that's that's really what's been taking up our time and it's you know we've probably passing a bill out by the end of this week with the answer you know the health care committee's answers to those questions don't have to the bill will then have to go to both the tax committee the ways and means committee and the appropriations committee  after that but but it's this is it's something we've got to get right you know that it's a five billion dollar a year industry here in vermont and we really don't want to mess this  and there are three three possibilities on the table for one is the employer assessment that some people mistakenly call the catamount assessment i mean it did fund catamount but it also did other things tha players suspect that that is one of them a second one is a an assessment on medical claims paid we already do that which funds a lot of our health information technology expenses and  third one is the sugar sweetened beverage tax and which one do you think will happen i think coming out of a committee probably the sugar sweetened beverage tax and where the health care committee and so we look at the three funding sources and we say which one of these funding sources actually has a beneficial effect on health and it's clear the sugar sweet beverage tax has an enormous benefit i mean did you know starting early on like within a year he would tell noice study that the state of illinois they figured that they and at this level you know economists have studied it over and over and and their conclusion is that yes a penny an out will decrease consumption by about ten to twelve percent of the beverage industr no question that it reduces all this just this tax alone is projected to reduce obesity by somewhere between four and a half and nine percent just for this tax because in them the fundamental reason is that when you drink soda it give you any feeling of fullness it doesn't light up the same part of your brain as when you even need a candy bar it just you get no supplied from it and so it's just completely extra calories and it was the only thing is that we drink on average fifty gallons of sugar sweetened beverages per person in per dog in berat per year fifty gallons i mean it's it's pretty frightening and you know some teenage groups now teenagers are drinking almost double that so that's there's a lot of science out there about it now text would be from the entire health care plan well we're not trying to fund the whole plan this is not twenty seventeen with the single payer system this is about the health care exchanges in two thousand and fourteen the tax would raise some in twenty fourteen and a full year it would raise twenty seven million in the first food stamps you get two dollars for one to two dollars worth of fresh fruits and vegetables for one dollar you know farmers markets will have the swipe cards for your your e p t card anyway so half it goes down half it goes to funding this additional state subsidy so just be clear when when you said will it include well the bill that george was talking about include funding and he said yes the funding is not for taxes so that that one really difference that's what i think our committee could mostly not what the ways and means folks will do and you know at the administration is dead set against it and they're dead set against the because they see everything through the lens of  while they're getting a lot of attention in the mid eighty's what will happen i don't know you know one of the things about the gas taxes is the governor is proposing to to get rid of the flat a mile per gallon and change it more to a percentage and the idea is not to raise more money that we would currently be getting but to raise it you know the revenues from the gas tax have been going down and the road and bridge repairs were sort of based on this amount up here and now they're going down and so what the idea is is to is to bring the revenues from selling gasoline back up to this level so would it raise more than it's raising right now today yes but it's not going to raise more than we have we have sort of planned to keep our roads and bridges in proper repair and one of the fundamental issues is that like in health care some things pooled on federal matching money and and this is one of them where we're leaving a lot of federal money on the table because we don't have enough revenue in the transportation funding and their you know their arguments to do it in various ways i mean you know right now if you drive an electric vehicle you don't very often at a gas station so for your coffee you're not paying any gas tax are minimal if you got you know very efficient hybrid but you're using the roads using the infrastructure so you know that was speak to more maybe fees around registration but on the other hand you know we live in a tourist economy here and the tourists paid gas tax but they will pay fees you know so i think it seems to me rational in the end is there's going to have to be some mixing of these things so that everybody gets to pay their share but i mean it doesn't make sense to leave with our infrastructure the way it is to the federal money on the table and so on and just a note on public transportation you know if that would increase it definitely decreases the amount of cars being driven also which affects the gas tax but just as a this is only from a personal observation is i carpooled from the park ride at exit eleven and if you get down there when the bus is leaving at seven thirty twenty of a little whatever that time that first bus leaves there is always a line of people lined up to get on the bus that has to be twenty thirty people and while another indication that it's being used well is that they put new buses on their rou that the number of people that they hold the bus looks the same size with eight of the seating arrangement it looks like it holds about twice as many people another thing about that is one day i had to come home and i got that bus and i went over and i thought you know i might be the only person on the bus at noon time or you know a handful of people well the first stop is in front of the state house there was eight people maybe that got on and by the time that you did the other one two three stops him up purely or something the bus the noontime bus was maybe two thirds full they're of really indication that you know that this that this is this is something that works in that people that people are liking i was really surprised at how many people are on it now and now there's a a bus at least i like it four five and five thirty years per some range like that for thirty five  why we have to do that and i really think that if not a three year moratorium on break should be applied to this situation so the at least  well i think your first statement was that you're getting signals out of month pillar is because there is you know like any like many things that there's a real difference of opinion especially in the  and it it what it has done is that there is so much difference of opinion it has sort of stunned me action on it because any effort like this you the idea if you're behind the moratorium you know which is what the what the proposal is is to make sure you have the votes to pass it before you bring it up because it doesn't do any good to to bring it up and have and lose i mean you don't you don't solve anything that way and then you and then you're behind because you can't bring it up again until the next by any so i mean you could change it like that to bring it up again but i mean the basic idea and so i think the real thing here is that there's there is a difference of opinion there's lots of people who have strong feelings on both sides and there is the there is no clear indication of how the vote would be that's that's how i feel feel about why you  feeling now everything you said is exactly true for the people who support the moratorium but but you have to remember there are people on the other side of the equation who feel just almost the opposite and you know that's sort of where where we're sitting now and until we can anything until you can convince or get convince people  them that your position is correct you know that's part of us that's part of the process i don't know i i my feeling right now is that it's sort of it is kind of in limbo about the to start so it would have to really come from the senate before i think it would get any attention in the house at all star and i never know what the sun's going to do  never know what's going to happen but at this point i don't i really don't know that that this is something we're go so so people ask me all the time well what can we do to get the effort moved or what can we do to convince people well you know education is really the type of thing that is and talking to your representatives to educate them so your point of view is one way to do what like like here but i if you know that your representatives are in favor of it or are on your side or opposed to what you know whatever wherever it is it's it's important to understand what areas are on the opposite side and understand why they're on the opposite side and help the people in those districts come up and and understand why you feel that way and why it's important and you know those are hard things to do but you know for example if it's the next town over and you know people there you work with them but that's usually not the case it's usually you know a pocket of of towns so you know the area that you don't know very many people but you know when when people run for statewide office they don't know people in all those towns and they go out and you know knock on their doors and go to their chicken dinners and everything and this is same kind of process it's more of the one on one it's more groups more getting people together to come to a library function and and talk about it and see what it is and get and get action groups that in the community  the issues that you're hearing from the people from jersey going to what are the e mails that you're receiving that are passionate as well you know i got some issues of e mails after the newspaper full page ads i got some some e mails about the sugar sweetened beverages tax and it was kind of funny because i got seven e mails three of them said we don't want to sugar sweet beverage tax for them said i was so we're told by seeing that and i want you to know i support this get a lot both ways i would say that i probably got more opposing gun legislation general but not less not from jericho under you know but but the terms of cult of total kind of e mails from all over we put in to build myself to our guns you know if someone comes up and holds a gun to your head doesn't pull the trigger and doesn't commit another crime right now lots of misdemeanor in vermont that needs to be a felony and so i have a bill that makes that a felony and gives a differential sentence if you commit a felony with a gun that's five to ten years your sentence structure built to do that and then i have another bill which has four provisions removes t them about this because her son was coming home from an exam at the university and was upset about his exam having to drive the gun shop on his way home picked up the gun went home and shot himself i mean you know he lived at home for they had a moment to you know have breakfast with him the next day they would have noticed something he did he was distressed most likely then because because our are big issues with a gun this is really suicide you know forty eight hour period during that time some likely to have a more rational thought look we know from the medical literature is that suicide is a very impulsive thing for many many people and there's this unfortunate combination of a convenient method corrective method waiting period disturbs people some people but most people who are you know when you explain why are more and more rational those those two those sugar sweetened beverage and the guns are probably the most common ones and there is it's interesting that the emails you get there are because people will say well which way does your community feel getting more e mails one way or the other but they come in waves big and a lot of that reason is because there will be a website or a organization that will push or their membership to to send e mails and you know so you get that wave of e mails for the next three or four days and then you know you get nothing on that and then a little bit later on another organization which is on the opposite side has it in and wait so counting by e mail says it is a difficult thing i find and you know  and it's also i can get you know you can get ten e mails that was sent off of a website you know with of a letter you know pretty form letter that they just click on and send it to you get the same one over and over again and then you can you know get one where somebody has taken time to explain their position to you and you know which is going to influence you more so four letters on the other treat lyme disease with chronic long term antibiotics i talk to can do get now if they choose that that's not the guy dies when you look at you know the guidelines of best medical practices that's not that's not recommended but a doctor if they chose to do that could do that now they want the board of medical practice to not discipline a doctor if they do do that the board of medical practice has never and you know i share an office at times but what the guy was on the board i talked to the executive director regularly they have never they would never go after somebody for just that now if you practice outside of home guidelines and i guess that's a different story right but but for that specific treating people with antibiotics long term they would never do that and the third thing they want is they want us to make insurers pay for this even though it's outside of medical guidelines so that's that's the one thing that doesn't happen now that is in the bill that would change topic in the legislature for a couple years on raw milk and it went back and forth and there's talk about taking sides of the wind issue this was the same thing that there was there was a lot of a lot of give and take on that and the house agriculture committee was the people there the majority favored allowing increasing the about a problem that a farm could sell that what that that what i remember the specific thing was how much you can sell because that the limit was so low it did it just didn't make sense before that and when when that passed there were some additional things that were added to to help insure the safety the the people that consume the milk and so i think you know and i certainly would have known the specific story even what you said there remember that from that time ago but this was one of those things of of where to get this increase in the amount that you can sell it and make it more available the trade off was and it was in the other and about the safety  you know you might have to raise the price to buy i have to go take a goat milk in your something myself so you know broadly how does this kind of stuff get started people for example who who produce raw milk they get together and they they come up with ideas of what might work and everything and they as an organization typically will will put together the problem with a proposal to present to some legislators who might be who you know legislators who either work in this area or have an interest in this area  you know to to help them support it and so that that's the same way this grassroots of of getting things together and so on another point is that there are that's exactly what lobbyists do i mean that's exactly the role of a lobbyist right is that they go out and they find information for their clients to get something passed or to to get favorable votes or whatever and you know but the only difference is is that you know a lobbyist is a person who gets paid to do it and the some organizations just you know do it well with others is one more effective than the other you know there are lobbyists that george can tell you and i can tell you there are lobbyists that will come to me and you know it doesn't matter what they say they're probably not going to agree with it but you know there are others that you know you get to know and they they will they they look to they can provide you with lots of information now if you ask a lobbyist to get you some information you know who they work for so you know that that is coming from that but when you know that you know you read the information that way and then you can also ask the a lobbyist on the other side but the same thing holds true for or like the farm you know which advocates for farms and lots of other little organizations well the first thing to do yes to to get it in and to to really have make make sure that they that you find a group of farmers who you know who saying the other thing is if when you didn't go to your legislature your favorable legislature the legislator had has access to to legal counsel to do research for you and to you know if it's  something dealing with money you know there's a committee legislative committee that does that so you know we sometimes ask our legislative council to do some research for us  time to get that done is dirt in the summer when we're not in session i mean they don't have the time to to do the research now but you know when when you have an interest in in a topic you know asking them in the summer to do it you know you  i remember drinking raw milk for my grandfather's pretty ugly things about the budget for i mean a lot of fiscal assumptions in the budget that may not be entirely sound we ran in the one of those in the health care side when the federal government wasn't going to share costs for something they were trying to do them so i hear from people that it's very very very difficult budget despite the fact that you  proposals that also have some funding sources that people just don't agree with paul and so you you have this you know you have this problem or you want to solve this problem here but this friend funding source just doesn't match it and so there's this you know what do you do you know which is we'll support and how do you do it or how do you find other funding we are tackling in the human services a variety of those right now obviously heat agency human services the largest agency by far the largest budget and so so i would say that the majority of our time so far this session has been has been dealing with this and i can tell you that in the eleven members of my committee there are people that are just you know you just don't know which way to go you know you so but the time is coming up very fast to have to make those decisions and and we well  sit well with the legislature funding early education for increased child care for poor people by reducing the earned income tax credit which is designed to get that people get down their feet and get to work  you know and there were several things like that of sort of circular funding that really was not well received in the legislature where were the programs but ok so we're not going to go with the governor's suggestion where we're going to find the money to send you to do trade offs i mean we're already there to get you where you talk to the third fourth fifth sixth highest taxed state in the country so you've got to do some tradeoffs and some of the things the governor proposed talked about i didn't realize we had this cradle to grave welfare system and i know we're pretty liberal in this state but he brought up issues that i think shocked a lot of people how liberal we  are i mean we see it at work all the time that people want to collect unemployment we can't get them to go to work i mean some of the systems here in vermont are not in favor of motivating people to get out and get off their duff and get to work and i don't  legislature sees that you only see one you see the people who are in real need you don't probably see the people testifying in front of you who are taking advantage of the system because why would they come down and justify what we see you know in the workplace so you got to get a balance here we can see that our vote on the other hand you know the earned income tax credit you know persons like getting that if they're not working well that may be a good i don't know which ones where do the tradeoffs you guys have to decide have a guy think there needs to be some tradeoffs and some of these pretty differ i've heard rumors that the federal government might be in the market for purchasing additional rounds for the farmers range and i was wondering if the legislature has so thank you very much for coming out thank you jericho residents we will be at town meeting an hour before a town meeting starts for a similar little get together if you want to stop any time