Ultimately, however, those with the physical ability themselves, or possessing the sentience to persuade others, will conf find ways to die if that is what they want. It would be better and more moral to create a legally recognised mechanism that would allow individuals to take such decisions. asp?conf id=4 If this freedom is what you would want for yourself, you det must also be prepared to allow others their choice.. Guidelines, codes and safeguards can conf be implemented to minimise their effects (as in the Netherlands), but the dangers will still be there. Imagine an old person, infirm and asp?conf confused, whose care and accommodation costs are eroding the money he or she had hoped to leave the children. Might guilt or pressure, det rather than intolerable pain, lead to a request to die? Even if this were not the confrances conf det case, confrances how could any doctor be asp?conf sure that no pressure was involved? And in id=4 an atmosphere where such deaths were common, would confrances conf det there not confrances be a danger confrances of a creeping cynicism about saving some lives - a comparison between those helped to die and those, just as ill, who chose id=4 obstinately to cling on to life?Some of these things id=4 will happen. det There has conf been steadily increasing interest in asp?conf the concept of "living wills", specifying circumstances where medical asp?conf id=4 intervention should cease.

Yesterday the Lord Chancellor announced the setting up of a working party to examine the legal status of such wills. It is a fair bet that sooner or later the law on both euthanasia and living wills will be changed to reflect public opinion.But before that happens the arguments against this democratisation of death deserve a proper response. Let us suppose, argue opponents, that doctor-assisted euthanasia has been legalised and living wills given legal status. As medicine allows us to live longer, sometimes in extreme ill health, the chances have increased of our being faced with a quality of life we do not want. The wrong conclusions could be drawn, people could be hurt.These sentiments, despite the good intentions behind them, are essentially paternalistic and will be rejected by most people. Where once issues of life and death were the exclusive province of doctors, priests or academic philosophers, now people feel able to exercise their own judgement - especially when these directly affect them as individuals.That is also why, for some time now, the tide of public opinion has been running in favour of liberalising the laws on euthanasia. The Motor Neurone Disease Association said that the programme would trigger needless fears among sufferers.

"No one with MND should ever be confronted by a need to consider euthanasia ... the final stages of the disease should in every case be peaceful and dignified". These protests are worthy, but betray a desire to protect us from ourselves. We can witness birth, watch a female orgasm, stand inside a busy accident and emergency department as the wounded are wheeled in - but witnessing a death, that is too dangerous, too difficult. Before last night's documentary was shown there were many calls for it not to be screened.