By Plenary Sessions: Irja Lutsar

The rhetorical style is analytical, cautious, and formal, focusing on logical arguments and details, presenting both a summary of the committee discussion and a personal critical stance. The speaker repeatedly expresses doubt and disagreement concerning the minister's responses, utilizing both statutory provisions and recent tragic medical examples as supporting evidence. The tone is serious, emphasizing the risks associated with patient safety.

The style is direct and inquiry-based, while still including an acknowledgement of the presentation ("for the nice presentation"). The tone is anxious and urgent, emphasizing the gravity of the situation with the phrase "the situation is really bad," which simultaneously delivers both an emotional and a logical appeal.

The speaker's style is insistent, advisory, and personally persuasive, utilizing strong emotional appeals ("for God's sake"). They logically support their position by referencing a published expert response that refuted the opposing claims.

The style is analytical and inquisitive, starting with an acknowledgment of agreement but then focusing on the lack of a control mechanism. The speaker presents their concern as a logical question, demanding clarification on how the systematic problem is being addressed. The tone is formal and matter-of-fact.

The rhetorical style is analytical and question-oriented, frequently employing rhetorical questions to highlight the deficiencies of the draft law ("Have these matters been fully considered?"). The tone is formal, focusing on logical consistency and procedural regularity.