The national debate on help to die is both moving and frustrating. The grim magnitude of the words of terminally ill British teacher Nathaniel Dye – “my death depends on it” – weighs on the conscience of the nation.

The tragic warnings of caution echoed from as far away as Canada are no less haunting. I cannot forget the words of Sathya Dhara Kovac, 44, of Winnipeg, who suffered from a degenerative disease and chose assisted suicide after failing to obtain adequate home care support: “I Could have had more time if I had more help. .”

However, our debate was chaotic. The government has failed to maintain vital neutrality. Wes Streeting acted as a spokesperson for the NHS bureaucracy – expressing concerns about immediate costs – and made it harder for Labor MPs to vote according to their conscience rather than their party’s policies.

Similarly, the MP behind the bill, Kim Leadbeater, jeopardized the entire exercise by calling on MPs to “take a step back» so we can hear from those with personal experience. This is a blatant attempt to bludgeon critics with an emotional hammer. This is an unacceptable attitude. The bill, if passed, would require meticulous safeguards to minimize the risks of people being driven to suicide.

Most alarming is the disintegration of this erroneous debate.

Assisted dying is presented by both its supporters and critics as a matter of principle rather than pragmatism. Supporters of the bill insist it is about alleviating suffering. Its critics argue that while the bill may “come from a position of compassion,” the “best intentions can lead to unintended consequences” – such as people ending their lives out of fear of being a burden. Some on the right are inclined to view assisted dying as the sentimentalist project of bleeding-heart liberals, which sober conservatives are forced to separate.

This interpretation is erroneous. On the one hand, cold utilitarianism favors assisted death. The taboo that no one dares to express is that medical assistance in dying will improve the financial situation of society. The NHS spends most of its resources on palliative care for people in the last six months of their life.

What if these funds could be redirected towards investing in drugs that could slow the progression of dementiafor example, in others – medicines which are currently deemed too expensive for the NHS?

Medical assistance in dying will also help people protect their family assets. Those forced to spend savings and sell assets to pay for end-of-life care will at least have an alternative option. While this may seem grotesquely materialistic, for many, the ability to leave a parting gift for their family and the assurance that while they may no longer be with them in life, they can at least contribute to their security in death, is more precious than a few more months in a hospice bed.

Critics of the bill have warned that legalizing assisted dying could lead to a slippery slopenot only the terminally ill, but also the chronically ill becoming eligible and under pressure to end their lives. This argument seems naively narrow. The point is that there may well be a case for expanding the law over time, not because of mission creep but because of technological progress. Medical advances thanks to AI promotes advances in life extension compared to those suffering from chronic illnesses.

We are therefore more likely to see the rapid development of precision medicine for the treatment of cancer than the cure of debilitating diseases such as Alzheimer’s disease or multiple sclerosis. Society could therefore soon be faced with a large number of very old people who lead miserable and painful lives. If the death wishes of some of these people are not granted, a Unreformed NHS will almost certainly collapse. We are unlikely to hear this other side of the “pragmatic” argument in Parliament, as such truths are considered forbidden.

Perhaps more importantly, we are unlikely to hear any more MPs confront the moral question at the heart of the debate: which is more precious to us – bare life or human freedom?

Those of us who support medical assistance in dying believe that human autonomy trumps the sanctity of our basic biological existence.

Our critics hold the opposite view that, although freedom is important, no one should ever have to die for the sake of another’s freedom, nor should the state have the murder of citizens on its conscience. . They believe that if only one person is driven to commit suicide or feels compelled to do so due to inadequate social support, making the legalization of physician-assisted death intolerable. But the fact is that when a society decides on a moral principle, it always implies the acceptance that collateral evils will arise from it. Our “innocent until proven guilty” commitment means that there are undoubtedly murderers on our streets with impunity and that countless victims have died over the centuries because we insist on a minimum threshold of evidence before locking up the predators. We accept such evil in our society because the principle of justice is so important to us. Why don’t we demonstrate the same unwavering commitment to freedom?

Given that so few libertarian lawmakers remain, it is unlikely that the moral arguments in favor of physician-assisted dying, which not only call for compassion but invoke the cause of liberty, will be widely disseminated. It’s a shame. What sets our species apart from others is our ability to imagine alternative futures and make choices accordingly. We are nothing without our freedom. Yet when it comes to freedom, the sanctity of the human will constitutes a particular blind spot. It is striking that we see no problem with legalizing abortion – invoking arguments about women’s bodily autonomy – but are ambivalent about granting individuals freedom of action . choose the mode of their death.

There is also something quite cruel about a society that denies what the mind wants but which the weakened body cannot execute, for fear of having the death of the “vulnerable” on its conscience.

To be fair to struggling MPs, it is harder than ever to have a discussion about death because the phenomenon has never been more terrifying.

Death struck like lightning, even the most tortuous epidemics, like the Black Death, killed people within a week. Today, death arises, undermines and removes people, piece by piece. However, we must find a way to accept it. This starts with the legalization of medical assistance in dying.

Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 3 months with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving deals and more.