In haste, but I want to draw attention to an excellent response by Alison Davis of No Less Human,  to this Hardtalk interview of Tony and Jane Nicklinson who are campaigning for the legalisation of assisted suicide.

The interview itself is very painful and sad to watch, and adds to what seems to be a recent ramping up of the very emotive stories arguing for legalising euthanasia.
My impression is that public opinion seems to support the campaign, and many pro lifers feel ill equipped to defend their pro life stance in the face of some harrowing examples of lives which are truly difficult and filled with suffering. .
We need to understand how the arguments for assisted killing run, and how to respond to them.

Here is part of Alisons response:

Both Mr Nicklinson and his wife want "strict safeguards", again along the lines of DiD's "model" law. Note that lethal injections should be available "in only the most special of cases." As has been apparent from places where some form of killing sick or disabled adults has been legalised (e.g. The Netherlands, Belgium, the American states of Oregon and Washington), it has proved impossible to 'hold the line' in this way. Once it becomes legal to directly kill an adult (by whatever means, and whatever the disability), the situation quickly deteriorates, and those 'not quite' fulfilling the 'strict criteria' are found to be 'worthy' to qualify for this type of supposed 'death with dignity'. Then the proverbial slippery slope is greased enough to allow the killing of those unable to 'choose' death - e.g. disabled newborns and people with dementia, both of whom qualify for being deliberately and directly killed in The Netherlands.

Read the rest on John Smeaton's blog here.