Sir Terry Pratchett recently gave a lecture in which he presented his reasons as to why ‘assisted dying’ should be legalised in the UK. Euthanasia is a controversial issue which can be seen in both a positive and negative light. Two writers for InQuire address this issue:

Arguing for ‘assisted dying’ is Sandeep Sharma.

Pratchett asserts that those who are terminally ill have the right to die and that those who assist in the death should not be prosecuted for their actions. I wholeheartedly agree; allow me to explain why this position is to be defended.

You are lying in a hospice bed. You have electrodes attached across your body to monitor your heart rate. Your food intake is limited to the tube going into your nose, down your throat and into your stomach. The nurse is regularly coming in to administer medication. Not that it helps with the pain, or that it eases the condition. Your friends and family tell you how much they love you because that is all they can do at that point, until you pass away.

A YouGov poll last month intimated that over 75% believe that those who assist in intervening, who help the patient to end their suffering, should be allowed to do so without fear of legal repercussions. This majority have the patient’s interest at heart since they know that in preserving the patient’s life with palliative care, they are only serving to extend the ordeal.
In Oregon, where assisted dying is legal, the Journal of Medical Ethics reported in 2007 that there had been no abuse. The Netherlands and Switzerland have euthanasia laws in place to provide an alternative route for those tormented by incurable and degenerative illnesses.

Correct regulations can be established for the UK; I applaud Sir Terry Pratchett for proposing tribunals should be in place to allow the patient to set out their case, and thereby allowing loved ones to resolutely fulfil their duty.
Health and nursing services are under increasing pressure. It is predicted that by 2040 there will be over 1 billion pensioners. Sustaining patients’ lives against their wishes is detrimental, both ethically and financially. The fact remains as people get older their quality of life deteriorates. Would it not make more sense to allow them to go out on their own terms, with those close to them by their side?
As the Discworld author puts it, “if granny walks up to the tribunal and bangs her walking stick on the table and says 'Look, I've really had enough, I hate this bloody disease, and I'd like to die thank you very much young man', I don't see why anyone should stand in her way.” Do you?

Arguing against ‘Assisted dying’ is Miranda Athanasiou.

Stating that life is a gift, would be patronizing; as would proclaiming that every moment should be cherished, and so I will refrain from doing so. Tempting though it is to begin by arguing that given two options, ‘life’ is always the better one; I have been provoked by Pratchett’s recent lecture in admitting that the concept of assisted death is much more complicated than I could ever have anticipated. Pratchett, who has recently been diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, wrote a speech that inspired and moved me and I could not help but feel compassionate to the position from which he was arguing. His work was nothing short of art and he explained with perfect eloquence that as the disease took hold of him, his whole world changed. Yet as I sympathised with him I could not help but note that, despite this man living with this disease, he has proved with the production of that very speech that he has so much to share with the world. So I wonder, who could possibly say that no more will come of a person? I care to point out that it is not until the moment of death that our potential for life ceases.

Pain is a terrible thing, which we are not equipped to deal with, and I am bold enough to suggest that often a person in pain has judgement that is impaired. Be it the physical pain of an illness, or the mental pain of having to observe someone you love suffer, it is impossible to make an impartial decision when it comes to life and death. It is too big an issue, too irreversible a result, how can we possibly decide when it is okay for someone to die? Furthermore, when do we draw the line? Many patients with terminal illnesses go on to live for years after their diagnosis, how can one possibly decipher when it is acceptable to allow for their death. Not to mention the matter of ‘whom’, the human race is a deceptive one, I dislike having to raise the issue that cases could arise in which the person assisting the death is encouraging of it, but not for the correct reasons.

Many believe that life is in the hands of God and we should not interfere, however, not everyone is a follower of religion and so I add, (for I am sure that we are all followers of life) that death comes when our bodies cannot continue to live. Up until that point we have the ability to fight. Once there is death there is nothing, but life walks alongside hope. It is impossible to tell what is around the corner, new medications, new solutions, even miracles are known to happen. Surely that is worth living for?