You are suffering from an illness that cannot be cured. One day a family member approaches your bed, takes hold of your hand, and asks whether you would like to die. How do you reply?

The UK parliamentAn assembly of representatives, usually of an entire nation, that makes laws. is about to debate a new bill on assisted dying. A LabourBritain's main left-of-centre political party. MPMember of Parliament. There are 650 MPs representing people in different areas of the UK., Kim Leadbeater, has proposed allowing terminally illSuffering from an incurable illness. adults the right to end their lives to stop "horrible, harrowing" deaths.¹

This weekend, Britain's religious leaders united to oppose the law. An open letter representing Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu and Sikh faith leaders warned that a change in the law would leave people feeling they have a "duty to die".

Here are three essential arguments from both sides of the debate.

The case FOR assisted dying:

Shorten suffering. Even with palliative careMedical care that focuses on making the quality of someone's life better when they have a very serious, and often terminal, illness. It often involves methods to relieve pain and suffering. , "people can suffer horribly in their final illness," says lawyer Charles Falconer. Letting them end their lives is an act of kindness.²

Popular policy. The largest ever poll on assisted dying in the UK shows that 75% of people support making it lawful, with just 14% against. This includes 78% of disabled people and 66% of those with religious beliefs.³

Safety first. Kim Leadbeater claims the law has "the strictest safeguards anywhere in the world". Those who wish to end their life must be over 18, expected to die within six months, clear of mind and free from outside pressure. Two independent doctors must also approve their decision.⁴

The case AGAINST assisted dying:

Do no harm. The first duty of any doctor is to preserve life. But this bill means doctors' relationship with patients "would change forever",⁵ argues journalist Melanie McDonagh.

Slippery slope. Critics of the bill worry that, once the law was changed, more and more people would demand the right to die. This was the case in Canada, where a similar law was introduced in 2016. One health minister thought it would lead to "perhaps a hundred" deaths, but in 2022 the figure was 4,800.⁶

Rush job. Several MPs have argued that the bill is being rushed through parliament. Even Liberty, a respected campaigning organisation that supports assisted dying, thinks there are "significant shortcomings" with the legislationLegislation consists of a law or laws passed by a government..⁷

Those in favour want the terminally ill to choose when and how they die. Those against want to protect the desperately sick from being pressured into suicide. Both are a kind of compassion, which is what makes this debate so difficult. And both sides say they are making the compassionateShowing understanding and sympathy to people who are suffering. choice.

Is assisted dying wrong?

Yes: Doctors are meant to preserve life, not assist death. Changing the law could pressurise vulnerable people into killing themselves, and the current bill is too rushed to reassure critics.

No: The new bill is not intended to end life, but to shorten death. Letting the sickest people decide when they die is popular with a majority of the public, including with religious and disabled people.

Or... Both those in favour of assisted dying and those against are motivated by compassion. That is why MPs must be given enough time to debate this law and make up their minds.