No one really saw it coming, but here we are, in the midst of what passes for a watershed debate about assisted dying, centred on the Labour MP Kim Leadbeater’s terminally ill adults (end of life) bill, and the huge moral and practical questions that swirl around it.
The weekend’s news has been full of the views of people who can speak loudly enough to be heard: three former directors of public prosecutions (all in favour), a former archbishop of Canterbury (ditto) and the healthcare professionals grouped into the Association for Palliative Medicine (against, because legislating to allow assisted dying risks ignoring “the lack of adequately funded specialist palliative care services”).
Meanwhile, Leadbeater’s backers stick to their basic point: that after years of failed legislation and awful human suffering, the bill finally opens the way to a limited but long-overdue change supported by a majority of the public.
Away from all the noise and heat of the argument, you can look at the story in a slightly different way. One of the most remarkable aspects of private members’ bills is that they can be given legislative time with only a vague title: the second reading of this one is scheduled for 29 November – and it could make it on to the statute book early next year – but its content has yet to be published. Its supporters insist that there have been years of debate about assisted dying – but not in the context of a seemingly imminent change in the law (only now, for example, are we hearing from doctors who think that a new NHS “assisted dying service” might be required).
So why the rush? Everything is down to Leadbeater being one of 20 MPs picked at random to pilot their own legislation, and the fact that the prime minister, Keir........