The inciting incident for me in deciding to research the subject was a television debate.  The opponent of Assisted Dying gish-galloped through a myriad of claims.  It was impossible to keep up, but it sounded convincing.  I managed to note a couple, and out of idle curiousity I looked them up. The first turned out to be a cynical misrepresentation claiming causality for a simple correlation.  The other turned out to be completely false.  During the television debate, none of the claims were interrogated.

Some media reporting continues to seek to present an equivalence where none has existed for decades.  It was misleading in the climate debate, and it is misleading in the assisted dying debate.  Whether those with deeply-held religious convictions, or those with chronic conditions and disabilities, the vast majority of people support assisted dying, and are frustrated that individuals and organisations that in no way represent their views are consistently given the microphone.  In truth, around three quarters of the Scottish public have consistently supported assisted dying since the 1980s.  

During the debate in Canada, the reason that the Jose Pereira ‘research’ was reported so prominently was that it was the best, or at least typical, of what opponents of Assisted Dying had to offer.  It turned out that “many of Pereira’s claims were not only not backed by the references he chose to insert, but that literature he cited actually reached conclusions different to those he reported.”¹  Similarly, “In Canada, media widely reported the case of a woman with multiple chemical sensitivities who received Assisted Dying, along with claims that she was driven to Assisted Dying through poverty and lack of adequate housing rather than intolerable suffering related to her underlying condition.  The patient herself refuted these claims in a note written before her death.  Another person with a chronic debilitating condition was reported to be requesting Assisted Dying purely due to impending homelessness.  The patient himself contradicted this assessment, and wrote that his story was ‘‘hijacked by the right trying to spin it into their own agenda”.’’²

As I investigated the general public debate further, I noted that wherever I looked, proponents of assisted dying being legalised sought to create a narrative built around benificence and respected autonomy.  Their position tended to be based on rigorous and peer-reviewed research, independent government enquiry and studies, and data collection and analysis before, during and after.  This is not surprising and in fact fairly typical.  The burden of evidence tends to be greater on any proponent of a proposition.  Those opposing the proposition simply need to create sufficient doubt to sabotage any vote.

Fear, uncertainty and doubt (FUD) is a recognised strategy that has been around a long time³, used by political operatives, often seeking to ‘flood the zone’ – a recent strategy particularly employed by right wing American organisations to obscure truth.  As Steve Bannon stated “This is not about persuasion: This is about disorientation.”⁴  The strategy does not require victory, only to distract, create doubt and confusion, and promote skepticism.  At best, the strategy leads its targets to false conclusions⁵.  

Despite the lack of evidence in relation to coercion, devaluing the vulnerable, slippery slope or taking money away from other areas of medicine, they remain better talking points than arguing that you and your loved ones should suffer unnecessarily because of the personal beliefs of a small minority.  Many believe they are on the side of the angels, based on their own specific interpretation of the will of their respective gods.  Presumably they also support the owning of slaves (Leviticus 25:44), including selling their children into slavery (Exodus 21:7).  Should we put Sunday workers to death (Exodus 35:2)?  Or treat gay people as an abomination (Leviticus 18:22)?  I could go on.  Nevertheless, many opponents of Assisted Dying  believe they are saving souls by denying the option of an assisted death to the intractably suffering.  Their intentions are honest, even if their claims are not.

It is significant how similar the experience has been across the world.  I’ve spoken to campaigners in Australia and New Zealand, across Europe from Finland to the Iberian peninsula, and in the Americas from Colombia through the US to Canada.  And in relation to opponents of Assisted Dying and their tactics, the refrain is constant: “they misrepresent things and they make shit up”.

At its core, much of the opposition we see to assisted dying is rooted in religious fundamentalism, and very specific interpretation of scriptures.  However, many others within their respective religions now actively support the introduction of assisted dying.  A large majority of actively religious people in this country recognise that modern medicine already obstructs and diverts us from the natural path, and they believe that a compassionate god would support any additional medical intervention that allows those we love to be saved from unnecessary and unbearable suffering.

It can be noted that some opposition strategies such as using bots to flood the internet⁶, along with significant financial investment⁷, have come from right-wing evangelical groups in the United States, with a clear objective to sabotage assisted dying legislation (along with other evangelical targets).  For American right-wing evangelicals this appears to be as much about the expansion and exercise of political power as it does interpretation of scriptures.  It is certainly direct interference in our country’s politics.

A summary of key talking points.

Argument Name	Short Description	Compelling Refutation
Sanctity of Suffering	All life inherently valuable, no intentional ending.	Quality over mere existence: Prolonging agony lacks compassion and contradicts true dignity and individual autonomy.
Abuse Risk	Vulnerable pressured into ending life prematurely.	Safeguards prevent exploitation: Robust laws with multiple checks ensure voluntary, informed decisions.
Slippery Slope	Legalisation expands to wider, less strict cases.	Evidence defies expansion: Jurisdictions with laws maintain strict criteria without  broadening the scope.
Life Devaluation	Sends message some lives are less worth living.	Compassion, not condemnation: Respecting autonomy in those suffering affirms individual worth.
Palliative Care Undermined	Focus shifts from care to ending life.	Care and choice coexist: Assisted dying complements, not replaces, comprehensive end-of-life support.
Doctor Trust Eroded	Physician role changes from healer to life-ender.	Patient-centered trust: Transparency and patient autonomy enhance trust in a caring physician.
Capacity Doubt	Difficult to assess true, voluntary consent.	Rigorous assessment protects: Multi-stage evaluations by experts ensure informed, uncoerced decisions.
Irreversible Error	Death final; mistakes in prognosis cannot be fixed.	Thorough processes and multiple requests allow ample time and opportunity to change one’s mind.
Doctor Distress	Participation harms healthcare professionals.	Systems and the right to opt-out safeguard professionals’ well-being and ethics. Alleviating suffering can be moral.  Virtually all British medical bodies have now ceased to oppose AD.
Moral/Religious Ban	Taking life violates fundamental beliefs.	Individual liberty prevails: Personal beliefs shouldn’t dictate laws for a diverse society.
Duty to Die Fear	Pressure on vulnerable individuals.	Choice, not obligation: Strict safeguards prevent coercion and reinforce the voluntary nature of the decision.
End Life, Not Suffering	Focus should be solely on alleviating pain.	Limits to alleviation: In unbearable, irreversible suffering, ending life can be the ultimate compassionate choice.
Discrimination Risk	Marginalized groups disproportionately affected.	Equality demands choice: Denying this option can disproportionately harm those already suffering most.
Vague Definitions	“Terminal” and “suffering” are too subjective.	Clear legal frameworks exist: Specific definitions and medical oversight ensure consistent application.
Social Fabric Harm	Negatively impacts attitudes towards illness/disability.	Compassion strengthens society: Supporting individual autonomy in extremis reflects a caring and empathetic community.

For terminally ill adults in Scotland enduring unbearable suffering, assisted dying offers a compassionate choice for dignity and autonomy in their final moments. Protected by strict safeguards, it respects life by prioritising quality over prolonged agony and honours individual conscience while working alongside expert medical practitioners and crucial palliative care support. Empowering this choice reflects a truly compassionate society that values self-determination at life’s end.

1. Schuklenk, Udo.  Assisted Dying in Canada  Healthcare Papers Vol. 14 No. 1 42
   https://www.academia.edu/9188749/Assisted_Dying_in_Canada?email_work_card=view-paper ↩︎
2. Downar et al (2023)  Medical Assistance in Dying, Palliative Care, Safety, and Structural Vulnerability.  J Palliat Med. 2023 Sep;26(9):1175-1179. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2023.0210. Epub 2023 Jul 3.  https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/37404196/ ↩︎
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fear,_uncertainty,_and_doubt#:~:text=Fear%2C%20uncertainty%2C%20and%20doubt%20(,of%20the%20appeal%20to%20fear.) ↩︎
4. https://edition.cnn.com/2021/11/16/media/steve-bannon-reliable-sources ↩︎
5. https://deathwithdignity.org/resources/refuting-misinformation/ ↩︎
6. Humanist Society Scotland (2024) Humanist Society speaks out on underhand tactics used by opponents of assisted dying.  https://www.humanism.scot/2024/10/07/humanist-society-speaks-out-on-underhand-tactics-used-by-opponents-of-assisted-dying/ ↩︎
7. https://www.theguardian.com/society/2024/nov/16/revealed-grassroots-campaigns-opposed-to-assisted-dying-financed-by-conservative-christian-pressure-groups ↩︎