The controversy over whether Mr Charles Haughey should continue to give evidence is a case of doctors differing and patients testifying.
In October Mr Eoin McGonigal SC, for Mr Haughey, told the tribunal his client's medical team, on medical and scientific grounds, had made an assessment that "because of the high level of mental and physical stress caused to the patient, the constant ongoing pressure involved and the life-threatening nature of the situation, he should not be subjected to this process any further, either in public or in private."
Mr McGonigal said it was the medical team, through Mr McLean, which had effectively intervened in relation to the ability of Mr Haughey to give evidence.
Mr McLean, he said, had considered the possibility of other regimes for Mr Haughey to give evidence, "and has confirmed that there is no regime that he is prepared to recommend, having regard to the deteriorating and continuing deterioration of Mr Haughey's health."
Mr McLean, in coming to his decision, consulted Mr Haughey's GP, a consultant cancer specialist in the Mater Private, and a senior medical practitioner in the Sloan Kettering Cancer Centre, New York, one of the foremost such centres in the world.
Yesterday, the views of two senior London specialists, a urologist and a neurologist, engaged by the tribunal to examine the former Taoiseach, were disclosed by Mr Justice Moriarty. He did not say why, specifically, the neurologist was engaged, but it may have been to give a view on the issue of stress.
Mr Gordon Williams and Prof Martin Rossor have told the tribunal that Mr Haughey is, "in medical terms, fit to give evidence, but that in the circumstances of his health status, special arrangements should be made to mitigate the disabilities from which he suffers."
Mr Haughey will be ordered to answer questions on oath in a private room in Dublin Castle, and the transcripts from this will, when the process is complete, be read into the public record and then become part of the tribunal's evidence.
Last year The Irish Times and other media contested a decision by Mr Justice Flood to examine the late Mr Joseph Murphy snr in what would have been a full sitting of the Flood Tribunal, with the public and media excluded.
The chairman then decided he would take evidence on commission, the mechanism which is now to be used by Mr Justice Moriarty.
Mr Murphy was questioned in the Channel Islands. He was very ill at the time. Mr Haughey has been deemed to be fit and strong enough to travel to Dublin Castle to be examined, but not in a condition to be examined in public. He may yet seek a judicial review.
The order is likely to be made by Mr Justice Moriarty next week, at which point Mr Haughey's legal team will make whatever submission it feels appropriate.
Mr Haughey is an important witness, though his evidence to date has been of little value in terms of establishing any new facts.
He has yet to be asked about his handling of money given for the treatment of the late Mr Brian Lenihan. It is the most difficult line of questioning he faces.