Just as we have the right to life and the right to make important decisions about our lives for ourselves, such as who we spend our lives with, an adult with the capacity to make informed decisions should have the right to choose their own manner of death, provided it does not directly harm others.

This debate is not only about euthanasia and whether it is right or wrong; it is about whether it should be televised. It cannot be argued on the one hand that deciding to commit euthanasia is like any normal adult decision and then argue that it should be televised. If it really was just an ordinary choice of an ordinary human being, then why is there a need to televise it? There isn’t.

By choosing to die, he may not have harmed anyone directly or indirectly. But by televising it there are many more considerations to be thought of. It is a great emotional strain to see someone at such a low point, healthy or not, that they feel they should kill themselves. People may have been deeply disturbed by what they saw. There is also the problem of euthanasia being seen as “noble”. It may make people in a similar situation feel that the noble thing to do would be to end it all, even if before seeing the footage they wanted to live through their pain and fight against it.

Craig Ewert was putting across two important messages – that he chose to die with dignity rather than permit a lingering, painful death, and that the subject of death itself is something we need to come to terms with and discuss openly. These messages would make very little impact if he just died quietly in the back room of the Dignitas clinic.

People deal with death differently. For some, if they do not see death as an option then the only way forward is to live. So a form of coping with the possibility of death is to ignore its very possibility; and this too is a choice that should be respected, not degraded.

By televising his own choice, he is saying the choice of others to not think of death is an ignorant choice. But surely, he cannot argue for his own choice to die whilst belittling other choices to not think of death and only see the possibility of life.

Whether or not one agrees with assisted suicide, it is a very different debate whether he has the right to televise his death or not. To ban Craig Ewert's film would be risking accusations of censorship.

It is very naïve to think that the press is not censored. We have so many considerations to take into account that we accept that some things should not be broadcast. Celebrities bring cases court if they feel their privacy has been invaded too much and they argue that certain photos should not be published, sometimes they win sometimes they lose. When someone dies, any existing footage or photos of their carcass may not be published due to having to respect the families wishes. Internal operations of the government are kept from the press under such guises as “public safety” and “national security”.

The press is censored, and there are reasons for such censorship. If questions were raised regarding the censorship of Craig Ewert’s footage, then the relevant broadcasters or watchdog unit would merely have to explain the reasons for not broadcasting the material. I am under no doubt that there are good reasons not to publish such material. If the time was taken to do the balancing exercise of one man’s right against public policy reasons, it would have been decided that the footage should not have been broadcast.

The specific reason for his decision to televise his death was to get people talking about assisted suicide. This topic is in particular need of debate since the current law leaves individuals in a similar situation uncertain. Will they be prosecuted? Or won’t they? Take Denise Purdy for instance, who is left wondering whether her husband will go to jail when her multiple sclerosis becomes too much and she ultimately decides to end her life. More importantly, the actual moment Craig Ewert passed away, was not shown which can only add to the dignity of the way he chose to go.

I find it very intriguing that people who assume you shouldn't televise these things also assume that everything televised IS WATCHED.

People have a right to say what they want already and no one can take that right away; that right can even subject me to something I don't want to hear. Imagine walking down a street and hearing an angry man scream about the end of the world for all white people, just to give an issue that would apply.

But now imagine the same man, not on the street corner which you must walk past, but on television; you no longer have to hear it, and he can say whatever he wants. Point: television is subject to the viewer's own choices. The viewer and the broadcaster are separate entities, and neither is mandated to listen to the other.

If anything, I should think people would prefer this kind of thing televised, rather than forced upon them via other means.

Ewert's film was organised by him and Dignitas and made fully with his consent, but if this becomes legal, it sends a message to broadcasting companies that they have the all-clear to use death as a tool to improve ratings – and death sells! While it obviously won't be legal to kill people in order to improve ratings, a film company might subtly persuade someone who was on the verge of a decision to end their life, with powerful arguments or with money for their families, to go ahead with the decision.

As assisted suicide is only semi-legal in the UK, to broadcast it in the UK may be seen as encouraging people to violate the law, and may lead to even less legal activities being televised.