Should terminally ill patients be allowed to end their lives via assisted suicide?

yes as long as they understand what there doing it is absoulutely painless and there illness has zero chance of surviaval or cure in there natural lifespan.

Yes, of course they should have that right. We don't allow our sick animals to suffer. If someone is terminal and in immense pain and anguish then they should have the right to request euthanasia.

Yes, but the rights of disabled people must be sacrosanct to ensure they are not pressured or obligated in any way.

Yes as long as there is a system in place so it can’t be misused (by doctors to save spaces for instance). The vulnerable patient should be protected.

Yes, if an extensive psychological assessment identifies capacity to make the decision and raises an issue regarding the person's quality of life

Yes, but medical insitutions need proper safeguarding against coersion.

Only with strict safeguarding

Yes, as long as it is not subsidised.

Yes, however but only if no chance they will survive and also after a psychological examination to ensure understanding, capacity etc.

Yes, but only if all alternative options and support are available, and two month wait period and full physical and psychological examination first and drug of patient's choice

Yes, but only if they cannot recover from their illness AND have undergone psychological evaluation and burden-pressure (real or imagined) has been ruled out.

No, not right now with the state the NHS is in

No.

Population decline changes the arithmetic of societies. Slower growth narrows fiscal room. Ageing concentrates costs in visible places: pensions, healthcare, long-term care.

What is contingent, and therefore political, is how these pressures are narrated. Demographic change is framed as unsustainable; fiscal pressure is framed as inevitable; dependency is reframed as burden; protection is reframed as privilege; choice is reframed as responsibility.

Individually, each step appears reasonable. Together, they form a moral pipeline.

At the end of that pipeline lies a genuinely dystopian possibility, not because it is desired, but because it becomes thinkable. A society in long-term demographic and fiscal stress does not need to tell older people they should die. It only needs to create the conditions in which many come to believe they ought to.

Palliative care to be improved first and the outcomes of the programme assessed for equalities impacts to ensure that there is no gender imbalance in the outcome.

Yea but only under a regime requiring therapy and proof of individuals not under duress to protect the vulnerable population

Yes if they’re capable to do so and their and individual facilities for this with nurses and doctors comfortable in this role

Yes, but only if there is close to no chance they will survive their illness, a psychological examination to show they fully understand the choice has been preformed, and a judge has checked if the person is eligible and has not been coerced into making the decision to die.

Yes but only after their family respect this person choice and after a psychological examination to show they fully understand this choice

Yes and allow parents of severely mentally disabled people to end the life of their mentally disabled offspring

After 2 years of constant pain and suffering. The government should make it a fun way to go, like to die on a rollercoaster.

Yes, but only in cases where their illness is terminal (minimal chance of survival), and after psychological examination to show they fully understand this choice.

Yes, and there must be appropriate safeguards against coercion. Assisted dying must only be an option if a terminally ill patient asks about it. It should be a criminal offence for a medical professional to offer to end a patient's life without being asked first.

Yes, but only after a psychological examination and tests and sign offs from multiple doctors and a judge.

Yes, if their understand their choice through psychological examination. Terminally ill patients can and will suffer - whether they are aware or not. I feel everyone should have a basic quality of life and if they believe they do not have one and it is causing undue stress and financial burden to themselves and their families while they are immensely suffering, the choice should be given

Yes but only if it is almost certain the person would not survive or have an adequate quality of life.

Yes. I support it but personally believe individuals do not have a right to impress their opinions on others.

If a patient has a terminal physical illness and has been judged by experts (potentially including a high court judge) to be sound of mind, then yes. Otherwise, no. Any mental illness should universally be off-limits as grounds for assisted suicide.

Yes but put protections in place to prevent it being used to coerce inconvenient populations (poor, mentally ill, chronically ill).

Yes but only with regulations, wills made, psychological examination so no one can take advantage etc

Yes but only if they have a terminal illness and they have had a psyhchological examination to show they understand that choice.

Yes, but the NHS needs to provide more reliable care so that assisted suicide is not the preferable option

Yes but only after a psychological examination of the patient if there is no chance they will survive their illness.

I want terminally ill patients to be allowed to end their lives via assisted suicide but I cannot justify implementing it under a capitalist system.

Yes as long as they can pass a test to show they understand the choice, then anybody should be allowed to die if they want to.

I think there should be a balanced approach of psychological intervention and right to choose if diagnosed with a terminal illness to die in a way that person chooses.

No, bureaucracy and mistakes will cause people who should not be allowed assisted suicide to undergo the process.

yes, if they will not survive their illness and have been proven to fully understand the choice

Suicide should be available to anyone who thinks that their life is worthless. Failed suicide attempts result in unnecessary usage of precious time by medical staff who should be helping people who want to live.

In the abstract, yes. However, in our current ableist socio-political climate, I do not trust any of the systems by which assisted dying would be "offered".

Yes, as long as they A) Fully comprehend the choice, or B) Cannot make the choice of their own accord due to their condition such as there is no chance of recovering from a catatonic state or it is certain death but motor function is limited, I.E: Parkinsons, and it is approved by next of kin.

Euthanasia is a human right. If they fully know the irreversible consequences and are psychologically capable of it, then it shouldn’t be an issue.

When at the end of their life and no other outcome is possible, when someone has minths or weeks left then a person should be able to choose when and how they die when possible.

If it was possible to walk alongside these patients to achieve their best lifestyle and strengthen them in so many ways and ultimately have the grace to accept hopefully an intelligent and well-thought out life decision.

Yes as long as it can be proved they’ve not done this under duress and a professional is sure there’s definitely no cure

I feel euthanasia should be legal in UK but only in terminal cases with patients and multiple medical staff recommendation/ agreement that its in patients best interest.

Yes as long as multi[le doctors are happy that there is no chance they will survive and after having a psychological examination to show they fully understand their choice

No, but they can be allowed to travel to a country where it is legal or to refuse further treatment.

Yes, but only if they fully understand the choice they are making and they have a less than 50% chance to survive their illness, or are suffering from extreme pain due to being kept alive

No, it is better for lives to be ended naturally, and give these patients all the health and social care they need, funding them by a substantial amount.

No but if they are terminal Ill and in pain they should be able to take pain relief that may shorten there life.

Yes, but only after a period of time. They should be assessed before waiting weeks/months in case they suddenly regret their decision or there is any improvement in their condition. People who are indisputably terminal should have a reduced time period, or it is nullified entirely depending on circumstance. People unable to communicate for themselves should not be considered for this, as they may be pressured by their family.

There should be a list of a few specific illnesses where it’s allowed, and a detailed procedure for ensuring that no one has pressured them into making the decision.

Yes but with a holistic examination to determine if their condition is treatable to at least a point where they have an acceptable quality of life (and if so why is it not being treated and address that) along with the psychological profile, and any pressures that could be leading them to make the decision and instead offer support to those (eg. If they are so poor that they believe death is a better alternative to becoming destitute - there are documented cases of this happening in various regions where assisted suicide is legal)

Difficult but eventually it would be misused by certain individuals and during coved old disabled and the more vulnerable were left to die and the elderly now are seen as disposable even when they have given 52 years of working and paying tax to go to the scrots ie srongers on benefits

Yes, but only if there are strict regulations that ensure that it is in fact that persons own choice

Yes but it should be the most regulated and safeguarded thing there is, and no government body, including job centres, should be allowed to suggest it.

Yes, but decisions like this should be discussed with a doctor when your an in mind adult. You prepare for the future just like organ donations etc...

Yes, but only if they have no prospect of recovery from extreme pain. Where possible, they should pass a psychological examination. If that is not possible, then the family would need to make a decision.

yes if it is the most ethical thing to do due to the terminal illness making them feel tourtured and the person really want that and it should be peaceful painless only with their consent

Yes, but only for terminal illness, blindness, paralysis, MND, chronic incurable pain or in any combination

Yes, but there should be legal safeguards in the legislation to prevent people being pressured into it for fear of being a financial burden.

Yes, but only for those who're terminally ill, blind, paralyzed, in chronic pain or in any combination

Yes, but only after heavy psychological examination to show they fully understand their choice with very strict guidelines.

Yes - if they prove they, and their families fully understand this choice and there is no chance of survival

Yes if terminal and in agonising pain

Yes, but at a particular no point of return of their illness, and only after checking that the individual fully understands the choice

If you have evidence such as video footage to prove that the sick patient has approved on the assistance.

No, because there's evidence that in countries where assisted suicide is legalised, patients feel pressured to relief their families / their communities of the 'burden' by dying.

Yes, and to anyone else who wants it. The right to a humane death should be an equally important human right as the right to life.

Yes but after psychological examination and if there is no change of survival. There should be no coercing

Only if it causes them more harm to be alive then to have a swift assisted suicide would be more humane.

Yes, but only if their quality of life is significantly reduced and the people closest in their lives are made aware

Only after psychological examination and after it is proven their is no chance they will survive their illness

Not legally, but each death should be investigated and if the Coroner is satisfied that no pressure was put on the patient then no charges should be brought.

No, I believe this is being used as a cop-out to justify maintaining poor quality of care in the NHS

In an ideal world yes, but I don't trust the government with this. If a disabled person has been told they're a drain on the system for decades, and then you reduce their benefits even further, then of course they won't want to live. In Canada, an otherwise healthy autistic 24 year old woman killed herself through the MAID program, she was cut off from her biological family and her boyfriend (20 years her senior) encouraged her to go through with it.

Until disabled people have quality of life I can't trust that the government won't just want us to die out of convenience for THEM.

This raises very complex moral questions that need more consideration and qualifications than is available in a short questionnaire.

Yes, along with psychological and holistic support through this choice and for those around them effected

Yes, but only if there are extremely tight safeguards which will eliminate the effect of external pressures.

They should have the right to refuse artificial life support and a psychological exam to show they fully understand this choice.

Yes, but only if they fully understand the choice and that their quality of life is severely compromised

Yes, but only in cases where they can prove they understand, cannot live without assistance or are too handicapped to live a comfortable life/mentally deficient & always suffering, however in the last case there should be homes available for their care. One should not need to live in pain if they do not wish to.

Yes, It’s more humane that way. But make sure they fully understand their choice.

Yes, but only if they are of sound mind to make this decision independently, or have previously agreed to it in an advance care plan.

Yes but only if there’s no chance they will survive their illness and only after a psychological examination to show they fully understand this choice

Yes, but only if there is no chance there is no chance they will survive their illness and only after a psychological examination to show they full understand this choice

Yes, but governments should not be involved as this could lead to them phasing out low income citizens or people they see as undesirables.

Should be allowed to refuse artificial life support, fully understand their choice or no chance of survival

Yes, but only if they are capable of understanding and giving consent to the choice. It should be theirs and theirs alone - hospitals, medical professionals, and governments should have no direct role or influence in deciding whether a person lives or dies

Yes, but only if there is no chance I will survive the illness and yes, but only after psychological examination to so they fully understand their choice.

I worry about dilution of the sanctity of life, but ultimately I think it's down to the individual and their doctor regardless of my own feelings on the matter.

If it is their choice and they are 100% happy then let them make their decision who are we to prolong someones suffering

More should be done to secure adequate pain control and support in end stage of life. Additionally, more should be done to alleviate mental suffering (which can also result in desire for end of life).

No and increasing palliative care funding via NHS and Hospices will improve quality of life for those with terminal illnesses

I fear pressure from the public purse to end life instead of costing the taxpayer- end of life should be a humane choice.

The government shouldn't have control over your body, but also the government should heavily oppose it.

I 100% agree with this as it solves and tackles many problems whilst making death a lot easier on families

Maybe in the chance they won't servive.

Someone's mortality should fall fully in their own hands, even those of a healthy body but suffering mind.