I don't understand people who are against personal choice to do what is right for yourself. It effects no one else.

Patrick Stone's statistics don't actually further his case, and the choking scenario is a smoke screen. I'd agree that most terminal patients don't wish to avail themselves of a quick exit. However, those who do seek assistance typically want to end the *loss of dignity and autonomy* that their disease has inflicted. Pain can be treated, but loss of hope and meaning is difficult to treat when a miserable death sits waiting in the wings. Patients ask for help because they are unable to orchestrate (either through incapacity, or desire to protect loved ones from prosecution) their own demise. We are much kinder to animals.

I'm surprised at the end poll results, the ladies did a fantastic job arguing for the motion.

My point is that from all people confronted with the perspective of dying, most of the very ill won’t seek assisted suicide. I believe this decision needs time and a free mind. The illness and immediate prospect of death doesn't permit that. The most fervent defenders of this ultimate freedom are philosophers, free thinkers and more than anyone, free thinkers with physical disabilities. All people with time to theorize and to fight for their idea as the defenders of the motion remarkably did.

Lord Carlyle doesn't seem to understand the point of the debate. He argues that when someone assists another to die, they are in effect murderers in the eyes of the law. Law changes as the years go by and with the circumstances of each era. The whole point of this debate is whether the current Law should change. As for Good Law, go tell that to a dying patient who's constantly writhing in pain, a case where modern medicine cannot help and we'll see whether they curse you and throw you out. If he was in those shoes, would he actually die suffering, or would he go to another country where Assisted Suicide is legal?

Excellent conference. Thank you very much.

We don’t want to be reminded of suffering and death; a taboo subject in our society. For many of us neither religion nor a community can be a guide; we are prone to our lonely fears. Maybe what we need is a more natural approach to death. Some liberal minds like this board should push for reflection about death. As there are lots of gurus and tons of literature about success in life, maybe it will help to read about how to succeed its death! It is, after all, the most important lesson to learn.

With enough signatures Parliament could address this

Dr. Kavorkian.

lose the religion "fairy tales" and let people chose for themselves. without the made up threat of the burning in hell myth.

Very interesting subject and debate, thank you iqsquared! I start watching in favor of the motion and swung along with the debate in both directions. Finally I tend against the motion, because I think the terminally ill are in most of the cases more or less assisted to die in developed countries like the UK. One of the gentlemen was referring to this: “…it is all right to give a further pain killer even if it is possible to stop the patient heart!”

We are all frail & fearful speak for yourself. :P