Mal Fletcher comments

Understandably, people of great distinction in any field will not want to lose the facility that has made their name, or through which they can enrich the lives of other people. Yet there may well be other ways in which their example can serve not only theirs, but future generations.

Indeed, the generational impact of laws on assisted dying is one of the most powerful arguments against them. What one generation allows but barely tolerates, a new generation will often treat as the norm, taking things even further.

So, if we allow assisted dying today, will we allow involuntary euthanasia in twenty years from now? Yes, it is unthinkable now, but quality of life arguments similar to those used by assisted dying advocates could be - and have been - made to support it.

Assisted dying, like euthanasia, may seem a merciful option for those who face an uncertain future due to the onset of age-related illness, or for those to whom medical science offers only limited hope for recovery.

Yet heroic stories emerge all the time, of people young and old who beat the odds - not necessarily by ridding themselves of disease, but by refusing to cower in its shadow. These people refuse to give up on long-held dreams, often doing the most daring things as they approach the end of life.

This unwillingness to go quietly, this commitment to leaving a legacy of hope in the face of adversity, is something we celebrate. It is a form of heroism that inspires us all to do more, to live more fully whatever our situation.

In the world of modern medicine, relatively few people die in total agony. Even those who face debilitating conditions are for the most part able to die with dignity, without helping the process along in an artificial way.

We would all wish for a quiet, peaceful and painless death. But trying to ensure that through the introduction of assisted dying is a recipe for social confusion and the breakdown of hope.