Euthanasia Arguments For and Against: What the Evidence Shows

On 11 September 2026, the House of Commons voted on whether to allow assisted dying in England and Wales. Two well-known women had spent years on opposite sides of that vote.

The first was Dame Esther Rantzen, the broadcaster who founded the children's helpline Childline in 1986. In 2023 she learned she had stage four lung cancer. That December she told the public she had joined Dignitas, the Swiss assisted dying organisation. She became one of the loudest voices for a change in the law.

Just before the 2026 vote, she issued a statement. She explained the trap she was in. She said: "By the time life did become unbearable I was too physically fragile to make the journey." She did not want to decide for anyone else. Of those who oppose a new law, she said: "I believe they should have no right to impose their choice on me."

The second woman was Liz Carr, the actor known for the BBC drama Silent Witness. Carr has arthrogryposis, a condition that affects the joints, and has used a wheelchair since her teens. In 2024 she made a BBC documentary called Better Off Dead?. In it she argues that disabled people would be put at risk by a new law. She told reporters she was tired of strangers who think "being us must be the worst thing imaginable".

The Commons rejected the bill by 286 votes to 270. Rantzen died on 30 September 2026, aged 86, with her family around her. They remembered her "endless capacity for joy".

Both women were brave. Both spoke from their own bodies and their own lives. And both were afraid of the same thing: other people deciding what their life was worth. That is why this debate is so hard. Good people, looking at the same facts, reach opposite answers.

This guide sets out the strongest arguments on each side. It tests each one against the research. Where we report evidence, we give it a simple label:

• Strong: many good studies or official data agree.
• Mixed: good evidence points in different directions.
• Early: only a few studies, or the data is still new.

Euthanasia101 informs. It does not tell you what to think.

Words matter in this debate, so here are the main terms.

• Euthanasia means a doctor or nurse ends a person's life at that person's clear request, to end suffering.
• Assisted dying (also called assisted suicide or medical aid in dying) means a doctor provides the means, and the person takes the final step themselves.
• Withdrawing or withholding treatment means stopping or not starting treatment, such as a breathing machine, and letting the illness take its course. This is legal almost everywhere.
• MAID (medical assistance in dying) is Canada's term. It covers both euthanasia and assisted dying.

The words people use change how they answer. In a 2024 Gallup poll, 71% of Americans said doctors should be allowed by law to end a patient's life "by some painless means" if the patient and family ask. When the same idea was described as "doctor-assisted suicide", legal support fell to 66%. Only 53% called it morally acceptable. Gallup thinks the word "suicide" carries a stigma. Only 22% of Americans called suicide in general morally acceptable.

So when you read a poll, or an argument, check the exact words first. Supporters often say "assisted dying". Opponents, including Liz Carr, often say "assisted suicide". Each choice carries a view.

Autonomy means the right to make decisions about your own life. It is the core argument for legal euthanasia.

In 1859 the philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote, in On Liberty: "Over himself, over his own body and mind, the individual is sovereign." Supporters say this should include the end of life.

They point out that we already let adults make huge choices. You can refuse surgery. You can refuse chemotherapy. You can ask doctors to switch off a machine that keeps you breathing, even if you will die. Why, they ask, can you not choose a gentler and quicker death when your illness has already decided the ending?

Courts in several countries have accepted parts of this argument.

• In Carter v Canada (2015), Canada's Supreme Court ruled unanimously that a total ban broke the country's Charter of Rights. It said a person facing intolerable suffering had two options: end their life early, often alone and in dangerous ways, or suffer until natural death. "The choice is cruel," the judges wrote.
• In 2020, Germany's Federal Constitutional Court went further. It found a "right to a self-determined death". It said this right is not limited to serious or incurable illness.

The data shows that autonomy really is what drives most requests. A major review by Ezekiel Emanuel and colleagues in JAMA (2016) looked at the US, Canada and Europe. It found that pain "is mostly not reported as the primary motivation". In Oregon's 2025 report, the top three concerns of people who died under the law were loss of autonomy (89%), being less able to do things that made life enjoyable (89%) and loss of dignity (65%). Evidence: strong.

For many people, the point is control, not the act itself. In Oregon in 2025, 637 people received a prescription. At least 100 of them (16%) never used it and later died of their illness. Think of a fire extinguisher in a kitchen. Most people never use it, but knowing it is there helps them stop being afraid. Supporters say a legal option works the same way for some dying people.

What opponents reply: Freedom has limits, and Mill himself drew one. He argued that a person may not sell themselves into slavery, because "It is not freedom, to be allowed to alienate his freedom." Opponents say death ends all future choices in the same way. They also ask how free a choice is when it is shaped by fear, money worries or a lack of care. A choice made alone in a hospital bed, they say, is not the same as a choice made with full support.

A question for you: Is your choice still fully yours if you make it partly because you fear being a burden?

The second main argument is about mercy. Supporters say that some suffering cannot be fully relieved, even with the best care. Forcing a person to live through it, they argue, is cruel.

Research shows that suffering at the end of life is real and often poorly treated. The famous SUPPORT study (JAMA, 1995) followed 9,105 seriously ill adults in five US teaching hospitals. For half of the conscious patients who died in hospital, families said the person had moderate to severe pain at least half the time. A large, well-funded effort to improve care made no difference. Evidence: strong (for that time and setting; care has improved since).

Pain is still part of the picture today. In Oregon in 2025, 37% of people who died under the law had inadequate pain control, or were worried about it. In Canada's 2024 MAID report, the figure was 55.9% of people whose death was expected soon. But nearly all Canadian MAID recipients (more than 95%) also reported a loss of ability to do meaningful activities. Suffering is wider than pain.

Supporters often use an analogy. Many of us have held a dying pet while a vet ended its pain. We call that kind. Why, they ask, do we deny the same mercy to a person who can ask for it clearly?

Even Mahatma Gandhi, famous for non-violence, saw some force in this. In 1926 he wrote that if his child had rabies with no hope of relief, he would see ending the child's agony as his duty. A 2022 review of world religions in the Journal of Religion and Health quotes this passage. The same review notes that Hindu views are mixed, although ahimsa (non-harm) is a central value.

What opponents reply: People are not pets. A dog cannot be pressured by a hint about money, and a dog cannot change its mind next week. Opponents also say the analogy hides who is deciding. With animals, someone else always decides. They say the right answer to suffering is to treat it, not to remove the sufferer.

A question for you: If a person's pain could be fully controlled but they still felt their life had lost its meaning, would the compassion argument still apply?

This is one of the oldest questions in medical ethics. It matters because the law treats the two very differently.

Today, almost every country lets doctors withdraw life support at a patient's request, knowing the patient will die. The World Medical Association, which firmly opposes euthanasia, still says doctors may respect a refusal of treatment "even if respecting such a wish results in the death of the patient."

In 1975 the philosopher James Rachels challenged this line in a short paper in the New England Journal of Medicine, called "Active and Passive Euthanasia". He argued that the distinction between killing and letting die "itself has no moral importance". He added that active euthanasia is, in many cases, "more humane" than a slow death after treatment stops.

Rachels used a thought experiment. Two men each want a young relative to die so they can inherit money. One causes the death. The other sees the child in danger and simply does nothing to help. Rachels asked: is the second man really any better? Most people say no. So, he argued, the act versus omission difference cannot be what makes killing wrong.

Defenders of the line reply with the doctrine of double effect. This idea goes back to Thomas Aquinas. It says one act can have two effects: one you intend and one you only foresee. A doctor may give strong pain relief, intending to ease pain, even if the doctor foresees it could shorten life. What matters, on this view, is the intention. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy explains the four conditions. It also notes that doctors and researchers call it a myth that careful pain relief can be expected to shorten life. The philosopher Philippa Foot tested these ideas in 1967, in the paper that gave us the famous "trolley problem".

Religious teaching usually keeps the line too. The Catholic Church's 2020 letter Samaritanus bonus says it is lawful to give up treatments that offer "only a precarious or painful extension of life." But it forbids any act aimed at causing death. Israel's Dying Patient Act of 2005 draws an even finer line. A dying patient may refuse treatment, and doctors need not restart a cycle of treatment. But they may not stop continuous treatment, such as a breathing machine, and may not do anything "designed to kill".

Here is a simple way to see both sides. Imagine a boat drifting towards a waterfall. Letting die is no longer rowing against the current. Euthanasia is steering into the falls. For some people, the end point is the same, so the difference is empty. For others, the difference between allowing and causing is the whole moral question.

Supporters argue that banning assisted dying does not stop it. It only hides it, or pushes people abroad.

There is good evidence that some doctors acted outside the law before any US state allowed assisted dying. In 1996, researchers surveyed US doctors in the specialties most likely to get such requests. Almost 2,000 replied. The results, published in the NEJM in 1998, showed that about 7% had helped hasten a patient's death at least once. There were no rules, no second opinions and no reports.

Rantzen's story shows a second problem. Under a ban, people who can afford it may travel abroad. But they must go while they are still strong enough. That can mean dying earlier than they would choose, or, as for Rantzen, finding out it is too late. Supporters say a local law with careful checks would let people wait.

Supporters also point to the data from legal systems. The 2016 JAMA review found that "in no jurisdiction was there evidence that vulnerable patients have been receiving euthanasia or physician-assisted suicide at rates higher than those in the general population." It concluded that "existing data do not indicate widespread abuse." In Oregon, the people who use the law are mostly white (94%), older (median age 76) and well educated (50% have a degree). In 2025, Oregon's health authority referred no doctors to the medical board for failing to follow the reporting rules. Evidence: strong that use is rare and concentrated among older, educated people; mixed on whether reports catch every problem.

What opponents reply: Official reports mostly rely on doctors reporting on themselves. Missing or hidden cases cannot be counted. Opponents also note that legal assisted dying does not seem to reduce other suicides. A 2015 study of US states in the Southern Medical Journal tested this. Legal assisted dying was linked to a 6.3% rise in total suicides, counting assisted deaths. There was no fall in other suicides. The method of that study has been debated. Evidence: mixed.

The sanctity of life argument says human life has worth in itself. That worth does not depend on health, ability or usefulness. So deliberately ending an innocent life is always wrong, even with consent and good intentions.

This view has secular forms. Some philosophers argue that the value of a person cannot be measured or traded away, even by that person. But the argument is most often grounded in religion. A 2022 review of primary texts by Grove, Lovell and Best found "near-universal opposition" to euthanasia and assisted suicide across Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism.

• Catholic Church: The 2020 letter Samaritanus bonus states: "Euthanasia, therefore, is an intrinsically evil act, in every situation or circumstance." It calls palliative care "a precious and crucial instrument."
• Islam: The Islamic Code of Medical Ethics, adopted in Kuwait in 1981, says: "A Doctor shall not take away life even when motivated by mercy." It also says it is futile to keep a patient in a vegetative state by heroic means when life cannot be restored.
• Judaism: Orthodox authorities forbid active euthanasia and assisted suicide. For decades, the other movements agreed. An earlier Reform responsum (a formal answer on Jewish law) from the Central Conference of American Rabbis said: "we do not kill them and we do not help them kill themselves." But views have shifted. In November 2020, the Conservative movement's law committee approved a ruling by Rabbi Elliot Dorff, by 9 votes to 5, that permits aid in dying where it is legal. A newer Reform responsum, 5783.1, admits that all pre-modern Jewish law rejected it, yet concludes "with sadness" that it must "remain an option" for "some few individuals".
• Buddhism: The first precept is to avoid taking life. Teaching on karma holds that ending a life does not end suffering; it may carry it into a future life.
• Hinduism: The principle of ahimsa (non-harm) is central. Most teachers oppose euthanasia, though some, like Gandhi, saw room for mercy in extreme cases.

Notice a shared pattern. Most of these traditions forbid causing death, but allow letting death come. They support pain relief and stopping burdensome treatment. So "religious opposition to euthanasia" does not mean "religious support for keeping people alive at all costs".

What supporters reply: In a diverse society, many people do not share these beliefs. Supporters say laws should protect believers' right to refuse assisted dying, and protect doctors' right to opt out, without imposing one faith on everyone. Rantzen made this point directly. Many religious people also support a legal choice.

The slippery slope argument says that once assisted dying is allowed for a narrow group, it will spread to others. It comes in two forms.

• The logical slope: If autonomy and suffering justify assisted dying for the terminally ill, the same reasons apply to people who are not dying. So the line cannot hold.
• The practical slope: In real life, numbers grow and rules loosen over time.

Here is what the official data shows.

The Netherlands. The regional review committees received 10,341 reports in 2025, up 3.8% on 2024. That is 6% of all deaths. They included 499 people with dementia, 475 with a build-up of age-related conditions and 174 with psychiatric conditions. Psychiatric cases actually fell, from 219. The committees found only 7 cases where doctors did not meet the legal standard.

Belgium. The federal commission reviewed 4,486 cases in 2025. That was a rise of 12.4%, and 4% of all deaths. In 1,117 cases (about a quarter), the person was not expected to die in the short term, up from 932 in 2024. Psychiatric conditions (1.6%) and cognitive disorders such as dementia (1.7%) together made up about 150 cases. In 2014 Belgium removed the age limit for minors. One case involving a minor was reported in 2025, the seventh since then.

Canada. MAID began in 2016. By 2024 it reached 16,499 people a year, or 5.1% of all deaths. In 2021 Canada opened a second track for people whose death is not reasonably foreseeable. That track made up 732 cases (4.4%) in 2024.

Colombia. The Constitutional Court first allowed euthanasia for terminal patients in 1997 (ruling C-239/97). In 2021 (ruling C-233/21) it extended access to people with serious, incurable illness causing intense suffering, even if they were not dying.

An older study adds another warning. A survey of deaths in Flanders, Belgium, in 2007 was published in the CMAJ in 2010. It found that about 1.8% of deaths involved life-ending drugs given without the patient's explicit request. In 77.9% of those cases, the decision was not discussed with the patient. The authors noted these were mostly very old, hospitalised patients, and that they differed from legal euthanasia cases.

But slopes can also stop. Oregon's law has stayed limited to adults with six months or less to live since 1997. On 7 October 2026, Canada's government announced a bill to keep mental illness alone excluded from MAID with no end date. Without it, the exclusion would expire on 17 March 2027. The bill has not yet been tabled. The same announcement shows that slopes can move both ways at once. It also proposed allowing advance requests, so that a person with a condition such as Alzheimer's disease could make a request while they can still decide.

Evidence: mixed. Numbers have grown and criteria have widened in Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada and Colombia. They have not widened in Oregon-style laws. Whether wider rules are abuse or fair progress is not a question data can answer. It depends on your values.

This may be the most serious practical worry. Opponents fear that older, poor, disabled or lonely people will choose death because they feel like a burden, not because their illness is unbearable.

The data shows the burden feeling is common. In Oregon in 2025, 39.8% of people who died under the law said they worried about being a burden on family, friends or caregivers. In Canada in 2024, the figure was 48.4% for people near death and 50.3% for those who were not. Loneliness was reported by 21.9% of the first group, but 44.7% of the second.

Real cases show how pressure can arise, even if it is rare.

• In 2008, Barbara Wagner was a 64-year-old Oregon woman whose lung cancer had come back. The state health plan refused to pay for a cancer drug her doctor prescribed. But it would cover assisted dying. She told ABC News the letter felt like being told "we will stand there and watch you die." She also said she opposed the law and had never considered using it.
• Christine Gauthier is a Canadian Paralympian and army veteran. In 2022 she told MPs that a Veterans Affairs worker raised MAID while she was asking for a wheelchair lift at home. The department said it found no record of this in her file. But it reported four similar cases linked to one case manager, who was suspended. The Prime Minister called the reports "absolutely unacceptable."

Depression is a second worry. A wish to die can be a symptom of treatable depression, and it can change. A 1995 study of 200 terminally ill patients by Harvey Chochinov in the American Journal of Psychiatry found that 44.5% had passing wishes for death to come soon. Only 8.5% had a serious, lasting desire to die, and 58.8% of that group had diagnosed depression. Six of them were seen again two weeks later. For four of the six, the desire had faded. A 2008 BMJ study by Linda Ganzini of 58 Oregonians found that most who received a prescription were not depressed. But 3 of the 18 who received one met the criteria for depression. The authors warned the law "may fail to protect some patients". In Oregon in 2025, only 2 people were referred for a psychological or psychiatric check. Evidence: strong that a desire to die is linked to depression and can change; early on how often screening misses it.

What supporters reply: Feeling like a burden is not the same as being forced. Many people who value independence feel this way, and it reflects who they are. Supporters say the answer is better screening and care, not a ban. Canada's report found that 74.1% of MAID recipients received palliative care. Among those who needed it but did not get it, the report says it was available to them in 91.2% of cases.

A question for you: If someone you love said they felt like a burden, what would you want a doctor to do first?

Disability rights groups are among the strongest opponents. Their case is not mainly religious. It is about equality and how society sees disabled lives.

The US group Not Dead Yet was founded in 1996 by the lawyer Diane Coleman. It argues that assisted dying reflects a "better dead than disabled" attitude in society and in healthcare. Many of the reasons people give for assisted dying, such as needing help with personal care or losing independence, are daily life for millions of disabled people. If those reasons justify death for some, the group asks, what does that say about everyone else living that way?

In January 2021, three UN human rights experts, including the Special Rapporteur on the rights of persons with disabilities, issued a joint statement. They said: "Disability should never be a ground or justification to end someone's life directly or indirectly."

Liz Carr makes a sharp point in Better Off Dead?. She describes a "two-tier system: suicide prevention for some, suicide approval for others." When a non-disabled person says they want to die, we offer help to live. When a disabled or ill person says the same thing, some laws offer help to die.

Carr also rejects the idea that a hard life is a worse life. "That having pain, having difficulty with everyday activities, must mean that it would be better if we were dead - that is not the case," she said in 2025.

What supporters reply: Many laws are written to answer this concern. New York's law, which took effect on 5 August 2026, states that people are not eligible "because of age or disability". Only terminal illness qualifies. Supporters also note that some disabled people want the choice, and say that disabled adults should not be treated as less able to decide for themselves.

Opponents say doctors must never kill, because the whole of medicine rests on trust. Supporters say medicine exists to relieve suffering, and that sometimes means helping at the end.

The rule against killing is ancient. The Hippocratic Oath, in a translation published by the US National Library of Medicine, says: "I will not give a lethal drug to anyone if I am asked, nor will I advise such a plan." Modern oaths have changed, but many doctors still feel this line.

In 1989 the physician and ethicist Leon Kass wrote an essay called "Neither for Love nor Money: Why Doctors Must Not Kill". He argued that medicine is not ethically neutral. Its purpose is healing, so doctors must not kill, whatever the motive. Many who share his view also worry about trust: patients need to know their doctor is always on the side of their life.

Doctors' groups remain divided.

• The World Medical Association (2019) is "firmly opposed to euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide."
• The British Medical Association moved to a neutral position in September 2021, after surveying almost 29,000 members.

Few doctors take part even where it is legal. The 2016 JAMA review found that fewer than 1% of licensed doctors in Oregon and Washington write a prescription each year. In Oregon in 2025, 155 doctors wrote 637 prescriptions, and 71% of them wrote only one or two.

What supporters reply: Every law with assisted dying lets doctors refuse to take part. Supporters also argue that trust can grow, not shrink, when patients know their doctor will not abandon them at the end. There is no strong evidence either way on whether trust in doctors changes after legalisation. Evidence: early.

Palliative care is care that relieves symptoms and supports the whole person when an illness cannot be cured. Opponents say demand for euthanasia is often a sign that this care has failed.

Modern hospice care began with Dame Cicely Saunders, who opened St Christopher's Hospice in London in 1967. She taught that "total pain" includes physical, emotional, social and spiritual suffering. Her best-known words are: "You matter because you are you. And you matter until the end of your life."

The research shows palliative care works.

• Early palliative care. In a landmark trial by Jennifer Temel and colleagues in the NEJM (2010), 151 people with advanced lung cancer were split into two groups. Those who got palliative care early had better quality of life and fewer depression symptoms (16% vs 38%). They had less aggressive care at the end, yet lived longer (median 11.6 vs 8.9 months). Evidence: strong for quality of life and mood; the survival finding came from one trial and needs care in reading.
• Dignity therapy. Harvey Chochinov designed a short therapy in which dying people record what matters most to them, to leave for their families. In a trial of 441 people in the Lancet Oncology (2011), it did not reduce measured distress compared with standard care. But patients said it helped them, improved their sense of dignity and changed how their families saw them. Evidence: mixed.

But here is the key fact both sides must face: most people who choose assisted dying already have palliative care. In Oregon in 2025, 92% were enrolled in hospice. In Canada in 2024, 74.1% received palliative care. Their main reasons, loss of autonomy and loss of meaning, are things that pain medicine cannot always fix.

So opponents say: invest in care first, everywhere, before offering death. Supporters say: do both, because even perfect care cannot remove every reason a person may have. In Being Mortal (2014), the surgeon Atul Gawande argued that the goal should be "not a good death but a good life to the very end".

2026 has been one of the busiest years ever for assisted dying laws, in both directions.

Laws passed or in force:

• France created a right to "aid in dying". Parliament adopted the law on 15 July 2026 by 291 votes to 241. The Constitutional Council approved it on 14 August, with three points of interpretation. It was published on 19 August. It covers adults with a serious, incurable illness that threatens life, in an advanced or terminal stage. Decrees still need to be written, so the first requests are not expected before late 2026 or early 2027.
• Uruguay became the first country in Latin America to regulate euthanasia by law. Its law (Law 20.431) came into force on 21 April 2026.
• United States: Delaware's law took effect on 1 January 2026. New York's law took effect on 5 August 2026. Illinois's law, signed in December 2025, took effect on 12 September 2026. Two days earlier, a federal judge refused to block it after disability rights advocates sued, saying it was discriminatory. Thirteen states and Washington, DC now allow medical aid in dying for terminally ill adults.
• Jersey received Royal Assent for its law on 9 July 2026. It plans to start a service in late 2027, which would make it the first place in the British Isles to offer one. The Isle of Man's law received Royal Assent on 20 October 2026, with no start date yet (Isle of Man Government).

Bills rejected or limited:

• Scotland's Parliament rejected its bill at the final stage on 17 March 2026, by 69 votes to 57.
• England and Wales: The Commons passed a bill in June 2025, but it ran out of time in the House of Lords in April 2026. An identical bill was brought back in June 2026 and rejected by 286 votes to 270 on 11 September. Our guide explains why the UK assisted dying bill failed.
• Canada announced on 7 October 2026 that it will bring in a bill to keep MAID closed to people whose only condition is mental illness.

Key court rulings that shaped the debate:

• Washington v Glucksberg (US, 1997): no constitutional right to assisted suicide, but states may decide.
• Pretty v United Kingdom (European Court of Human Rights, 2002): Diane Pretty, who had motor neurone disease, asked that her husband not be prosecuted for helping her. The court ruled the right to life does not include a right to die.
• Gonzales v Oregon (US, 2006): the federal government could not use drug laws to block Oregon's law.
• Carter v Canada (2015) and Germany's 2020 ruling, described above, both found rights-based grounds for assisted dying.

Both sides repeat claims that do not survive a close look.

"Euthanasia is the same as murder." Murder is an unlawful killing. Where euthanasia is legal, it is lawful by definition, and it requires the person's own clear request and independent medical checks. You may still think it is wrong. But calling it murder hides real differences that the law and ethics take seriously.

"Legal euthanasia will lead to Nazi-style killing." From 1939 to 1945, the Nazi "euthanasia" killings, known as Aktion T4, murdered an estimated 275,000 to 300,000 disabled and mentally ill people. It was forced, not chosen. It was the opposite of voluntary assisted dying. Still, this history is one reason disability groups are so cautious, and it deserves respect.

"Most people ask because of unbearable pain." False. Loss of autonomy, loss of enjoyment and loss of dignity come first in the data.

"Assisted dying is only for the terminally ill." It depends on the country. Oregon, New York and France require serious or terminal illness. Belgium, the Netherlands, Canada's second track and Colombia do not.

"Good palliative care removes all suffering." It removes most, not all. And most people who choose assisted dying already have it.

"Legal assisted dying reduces other suicides." There is no good evidence for this yet. Evidence: early to mixed.

"There is no slippery slope." Criteria have widened in some countries. That is a fact. Whether it is a problem is a debate.

"Most doctors support it." Doctors are deeply divided. The World Medical Association opposes it, while the British Medical Association is neutral.

You do not have to pick a team. Many thoughtful people hold a mix of views. Some support a narrow law for the terminally ill but oppose wider ones. Some oppose any law but support strong rights to refuse treatment.

Watch for these common errors in debates:

• Appeal to nature: "Death should be natural." Most of modern medicine is not natural.
• False choice: "It is either euthanasia or terrible suffering." Usually there are other options too.
• Slippery slope with no evidence: Predictions need data, not just fear.
• Emotion without reasons: A moving story is not, alone, an argument. That is true for stories on both sides, including the two that open this guide.

Questions to ask about any proposed law:

• Who is eligible: terminal illness only, or wider?
• How is a person checked for depression, pressure and capacity?
• What happens if good care is not available locally?
• Who reviews each case, and are the results published?
• Can doctors and care homes opt out?

Now think back to Esther Rantzen and Liz Carr. Rantzen feared a law that took away her choice at the end. Carr feared a law that would quietly tell people like her that their lives were worth less. Both wanted the same thing in the end: to be treated as a full person whose life is their own.

Perhaps that is the best test of any answer to this question. Does it protect the person who wants to choose, and the person who fears being chosen for?

Where do you stand? And would your answer change if it were your own life, or the life of someone you love?