Many of the arguments Pratchett discussed centred around the necessity of a well thought out system with clearly defined lines that we cannot legally cross. A slippery slope is not possible once we have established that these are the groups of people eligible, this is how we test for it and no, that loophole will not work. We already have competency checks for other legal decisions and they have not led to complete collapse in the way that opponents of assisted suicide fear. Everyone who should be eligible for assisted suicide is given a hearing, nobody is denied their rights, nobody is assisted to die without their consent or without being eligible.

Assisted suicide being entirely illegal is also a system with clear guidelines and no loopholes: assisted suicide is not acceptable under any circumstances. How is this unclear?

If assisted suicide remains illegal, people will not come to the authorities. They will arrange for assisted suicide illegally. There will be no way for the authorities to monitor whether that person is being pressured into the decision in some way. They may be assisted by someone incompetent who botches the job or cheats them, or try to kill themselves and fail, causing even more pain. At the very least, they would be forced to go abroad and pay thousands of pounds (Dignitas currently charge a flat fee of around £3500 and require a long period of membership which is £16 per month, along with arranging one's own transport costs) – making it impossible for someone on a low income to back out of a decision once they have made it. Those who want to die are an extremely vulnerable group of people who need support, whether or not it is actual assisted suicide. A flat refusal to meet their needs will be the best way to drive them away.

This assumes people in authority are not corrupt and that those in already disadvantaged situations are going to trust officials. Many vulnerable people who wish to seek help will be put off by the idea that the person they are talking to is legally allowed to euthanise them – for instance, people who do not have the education or mental faculties to understand that they are not even eligible.

Bringing more and more people into the category of those eligible for assisted death is exactly what we are trying to avoid. We can only practically make a law about what can be defined and given limits to. For instance, psychological pain and limitation is very difficult to define and put boundaries to – which is why it is not included in quality of life calculations – and extremely difficult to differentiate from being unable to give rational informed consent.

Under Margo MacDonald’s “End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill” , seen as the best working model for what Pratchett proposes, the conditions for a person to be eligible to ask for assisted suicide are 'if the person has either been diagnosed as terminally ill and finds life intolerable, or is permanently physically incapacitated to such an extent that the person is unable to live independently and finds life intolerable'. (http://www.heraldscotland.com/life-style/real-lives/alive-to-the-dangers-of-legislation-1.1003079)

This could cause tensions in the disabled community when a person has been made unable to live independently by social circumstances caused by discrimination that they are trying to campaign against, and feel affronted when it is suggested that they are eligible to be killed, as well as feeling that it may weaken their campaign.

It also discriminates against those with non-terminal conditions who are in immense physical pain to the extent that they do not wish to live, but who consider themselves independent.

Finally, it discriminates against those in conditions of immense psychological degradation but who have enough lucid periods to express a rational wish to die.

Under Pratchett's suggestions, the applicants would also have to be over 45, automatically barring the right to death for many younger people who have been left in a condition of unbearable pain due to a terminal illness or accident, who are in just as much pain as an older person.

This is a good case to wait until we have a decent terminal care system in place before instituting the tribunal, but not enough of a case to never institute it at all.

Pratchett himself says that care for the dying is currently insufficient and badly funded. If assisted suicide becomes an option, it may be assumed that at least a portion of people will choose the option and therefore less funding needs to go towards their care. This will disadvantage those who do genuinely wish to be maintained up until the last minute. It could even push them to request assisted suicide where, if they had enough high quality care, they wouldn't do.

Nothing in life can ever said to be value neutral. Human’s are not designed to be value neutral. Neither are humans capable of being omniscient; this is a trait ascribed to God’s! Therefore, what we are obtaining is not facts to be trusted in. but well formed opinions. A tribunal would be able to assess all areas, from religion, to the condition, to the family’s wishes to the wishes of the patient and the age of the patient. This is a holistic approach taking into account all circumstances, whilst not omniscient or value neutral, surely it is more trustworthy that a rigid law that applies indiscriminately with no regard for the circumstances of each individual.

Who selects the tribunal?

How are they better representatives of the patient's wishes/needs than the patient him/herself?

Does the patient have to say s/he wants to die before the tribunal steps in; because if the patient is stripped of making that choice this becomes murder.

What if the family differs with patient.

When someone is comatose, the family makes decisions over whether to pull the plug. Will a tribunal intervene in this matter?

Won't a tribunal impede/stall matters when time is of the essence?

What makes the tribunal credible and not invested in the financial considerations of the hospital/institution they work for?