Assisted Dying: Should People Have the Right to End Their Own Lives?

Few topics stir as much emotion—and controversy—as the question of whether individuals should have the right to end their own lives. Is life something we own, with full autonomy over its end? Or are there moral, spiritual, or societal obligations that make suicide and assisted dying ethically problematic?

In this informal session, we’ll explore the complex intersection of personal freedom, mental health, suffering, dignity, and the value of life itself. From debates around euthanasia and terminal illness, to philosophical takes on existential despair and meaninglessness, we’ll ask: where should the line be drawn, and who gets to draw it?

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbeater in October 2024, aims to permit terminally ill adults with less than six months to live to seek medical assistance to end their lives. The bill has passed its second reading in the House of Commons and is currently undergoing committee scrutiny. However, debates over amendments and implementation timelines have cast uncertainty over its future, with potential delays pushing its enactment as far as 2029. This legislative effort reflects the ongoing and complex debate surrounding assisted dying in the UK.

This will be a sensitive but open-minded discussion, with room for differing perspectives—whether you lean toward secular humanism, religious tradition, stoicism, existentialism, or something else entirely.

Come with curiosity and compassion, and be ready to grapple with one of the deepest ethical questions of our time.

The Case of Elizabeth

In 1983, a 26-year-old woman checked into Riverside General Hospital in California. She was articulate, intelligent, and fully mentally competent. She also had severe cerebral palsy and degenerative arthritis, which left her in constant pain and almost completely physically dependent. Despite her sharp mind, her body was failing her, and she felt she had no control over her life.

Elizabeth declared her intention to end her life by refusing food and water, asking the hospital to respect her wishes and provide palliative care to ease her suffering during the process. She did not want to die violently or alone — she simply wanted the right to die with dignity.

The hospital refused.

Doctors obtained a court order to forcibly feed her through a nasogastric tube, arguing a legal and ethical obligation to preserve life. Elizabeth took the matter to court, arguing that she had the right to refuse medical treatment and to die on her own terms.

Her case became nationally televised and ignited a fierce ethical debate across America. Disability rights activists, bioethicists, religious leaders, and the public all weighed in. Some argued that Elizabeth's desire to die was not a true choice, but a cry for help in a world that failed to support disabled people adequately. Others felt that the state had no right to overrule her autonomy.

In 1986, an appeals court finally ruled that Elizabeth did indeed have the right to refuse force-feeding. It was seen as a landmark decision — a potential turning point for the right-to-die movement in the U.S.