The use of arguments and justifications in Westminster parliamentary debates on assisted dying

Abstract

Assisted dying, the practice whereby healthcare professionals provide lethal drugs to end the life of patients at their voluntary request, remains unlawful in the United Kingdom, despite multiple attempts to change the law during the past two decades. Using qualitative and quantitative research methods, our research analysed eight debates on this topic that have taken place in the Westminster Parliament between 2014 and 2022, with a view to (a) providing a detailed classification of the arguments used by Parliamentarians (b) establishing the range and balance of anecdotes, evidence and authority statements underpinning those arguments and (c) generating insights into relationships between these argumentative strategies and the stances and characteristics of the speakers. Supporters of change emphasise principles such as autonomy and compassion and make extensive use of anecdotes that describe awful deaths under the current arrangements. Opponents contend that vulnerable individuals will suffer pressure and abuse, that the health and social care system will be adversely affected, and that legalisation will inevitably lead to expansion in the eligibility criteria and the numbers ending their lives in this way. By promoting evidence-informed debate and closer scrutiny of the arguments deployed, the findings and discussion should be of interest to any legislative (or executive) bodies around the world that are contemplating a change in the law with respect to assisted dying.