By Jack Daly

Assisted suicide has been an issue that has divided many an opinion.

For some, allowing a person to end their own life under safe medical terms seems ‘morally problematic.’

However, for others, they believe that if a person is of a stable mental state and are in grave pain due to an illness or condition, they should be allowed to relieve themselves of this pain.

Yesterday a committee scrutinising the Terminally Ill Adults Bill voted to deny a clause which would make the proposal for the legislation for England and Wales the ‘strictest in the world.’

This left a sour taste in the mouth for many campaigners advocating for the assisted suicide law. They opposed the new legislation saying: the high court safeguard was ‘ditched in favour of unworkable panels.’

However, despite the backlash from the campaigners the scrutiny committee ruled 15 to seven in favour of removing the court approval cause.

The MP behind the bill, Kim Leadbitter proposed that there would be an assisted dying commissioner featuring panels of judges, experts and psychiatrists who would make the decision on the applications for assisted dying.

The idea of assisted suicide is to die with dignity. A way to let go when the pain is all too much. It gives a terminally ill person the right to die in a humane manner.

However, assisted suicide remains as a highly controversial topic that engulfs many factors. Stances on the law, politics, religion and ethics must be taken into consideration.

However, the focal point of all these factors is of course the law. Many of course try to get around this but according to Campaign for Dignity in Dying assisted suicide is only legal in 16 countries worldwide.

Laws advocating for it in the UK are still being discussed.

The UK parliament’s website provides information for and against the topic, providing interesting and informative points.

This shows the imbalance and lack of consistency in our parliamentary stance. Parliament recognises that the argument for assisted suicide is to stop the suffering of an individual. In the same document parliament also argues that as a government they should do all they can to preserve life at all costs.

They argue that ‘life itself should not be a burden’ despite that suffering or treatment for said suffering may be particularly burdensome.

Ultimately life is precious, it is not something we should take for granted. However, sometimes life may get to a point where you then know that there is nothing left you can do to halt your suffering, and death may only be the thing that will release you from it.

As morbid as it may sound, in some cases death is necessary. We can euthanise horses, dogs and many other animals that are experiencing such pain when there is no more, we can do.

We don’t do it because we hate them and we wish death upon them, we do it because we love them. We love them so dearly that we would rather see them be at peace than suffer. Perhaps we should we treat our own loved ones with the same respect?

It could be argued that maybe there is an age divide in the argument. In a survey I found that in 37 under 25-year-olds 35 of whom believed that people should be given the right to be assisted in death and two were unsure.

As time goes on and these young people grow into positions of authority, could we see the legalisation of assisted dying in the UK?

The Controversy Surrounding Assisted Suicide