Professor Nancy Preston:

On terms of evidence, the evidence is conflicting. I presented things one could take and use on either side of the argument. It is not clear-cut. When it comes to safety, any system that upfront gives an assessment means, one has more chance of being able to follow the patients through a legal system.

In response to the dissonance of the doctors, if one includes a palliative care assessment in that as well, palliative care teams on the whole are against assisted dying, but not completely. If one had a palliative care assessment, it would give one that balance and perhaps also have that contact Dr. MacLeod was looking for. However, look at your healthcare system. How often do you see the same doctor? Do you have long-term relationships with medicine anymore? Panels might be the safest option. It might feel very uncomfortable and clinical, but it might provide more safeguards than you think.

With regard to ethics and values, this absolutely comes down to that. It is very hard for it not to be. It is very hard to decide this just on evidence. If one has a religious belief, that will take over any view on the facts and the numbers. It will be very hard to change people's views one way or the other. All we can do is present evidence, but ultimately it is down to the committee to think about where it goes with its ethics and its values.