I have doubts about the success of any committee where all the participants are impartial.  I find the best results are achieved when there is at least one passionate advocate for each side.  This issue of assisted dying has already been decided so it doesn't matter what this guy thinks.  What's at issue now is ensuring the necessary safeguards are in place for advance requests.   I'm not sure this guy should be chairman but he isn't making these decisions by himself.  The committee will make them.    I think guy will make himself valuable by being a devils advocate and exposing potential pitfalls.