Talk:Assisted suicide in the United Kingdom

AliCarshalton (talk) 12:20, 29 April 2024 (UTC) May I suggest this as a better introductory paragraph? The current intro is generic and almost totally unrelated to the UK:

Assisted suicide is currently illegal under the law of the United Kingdom. In England and Wales, the Suicide Act 1961 prohibits "aiding, abetting, counselling or procuring the suicide of another" with a penalty of up to 14 years' imprisonment. Approximately 46 Britons a year travel abroad for physician-assisted suicide, usually to Dignitas in Switzerland. Following legal challenges, public prosecutorial guidance was issued in 2010 indicating scenarios where prosecution for assisted suicide may not be in the public interest. Bills to legalise assisted dying have been introduced multiple times in Parliament since the 1930s, but none have passed. The devolved governments of Scotland and Northern Ireland have not legalised assisted dying either, although there is some political support for changing the law in Scotland. Polling shows a majority of the British public and doctors support legalising assisted dying, but the British Medical Association adopted a neutral position in 2021 after previously opposing any changes to the law.

References

Noel Conway etc

The result of an AfD was to merge content about Noel Conway into this article.

All the information about him, and other supporters of assisted dying, has been removed. I reverted, my revert was reverted citing "WP:BRD", and I have reverted again on the basis that the removal was the "Bold", its reversion the "Revert", and we are here now to "Discuss", leaving the article in its previous state. The list of Advocates of assisted dying had been in place at least five years and should not be removed on the contested decision of one editor, especially given the AfD decision on Conway. PamD 19:57, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@PamD, sorry, I didn't realise that content had been there so long. I shouldn't have invoked BRD there as I was wrongly assuming the lists of advocates and opponents, and the Conway content was a recent addition, with the subject being in the news at the moment. I accept that I was mistaken in reverting your restoration, and that you were correct to restore it again.

However, I am not happy to see that content in the article. I have two problems with it:

1. the lists of advocates and opponents are original research as there are no sources cited that present those complete lists as notable lists. Us singling-out those individuals (cherry-picking?) is also giving them undue weight (especially those who aren't even sourced) - and why have some very notable advocates and opponents been omitted? To include them we surely need a source which is concentrating on assisted suicide and which discusses all those specific individuals in that context as examples of advocates and opponents.
2. surely all that detailed content about Conway is totally undue in the context of this article - this isn't his bio, and is largely off-topic anyway.

I hope that clarifies my edits. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto, As the original author of the now-merged page on Noel Conway, I felt his case was significant due to the fact that it was the second and seemingly final legal challenge to assisted suicide law in the UK, the first being Tony Nicklinson which is covered in some detail: R_(Nicklinson)_v_Ministry_of_Justice. Conway's case differed from Nicklinson's as Nicklinson was not terminally ill and so Conway's was argued on different grounds. The rejection by the lower courts, and that of the Supreme Court in itself was an affirmation by the Supreme Court that it would hear no such further cases and that Parliament must decide. I believe his case (and Nicklinson's) offer valuable context to the assisted suicide debate within the UK specifically. Jdee4 (talk) 13:17, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Jdee4, thanks for explaining that. I can't see why he needs a whole section devoted to his attempts though, when they is already adequately and duly summarised in the "Legal challenges" section. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:25, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@DeFacto Understood. Nonetheless I still feel that more expansive coverage is justified than that in the "Legal challenges" section, for the reasons I gave previously. Jdee4 (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2024 (UTC)