For the first time in nearly a decade, lawmakers will debate and vote Friday on whether terminally ill people should have the right to end their lives.

If MPs vote in favor of assisted dying, it could lead to a significant change in society in Britain, similar to reforms such as the death penalty, divorce, abortion and gay marriage.

Lawmakers last voted on this extremely sensitive issue nearly a decade ago, when they widely rejected the idea. But it is hard to predict how the House of Commons, filled with many first-time MPs and having an independent vote on the matter, will approach such an important debate.

Jan Butterworth wants the option to end her life. She has advanced endometrial cancer and has been told she has less than six months to live.

She saw her husband die from liver cancer 30 years ago and does not want to follow the same path. “It was a very difficult and very painful death,” she says.

Under the proposed new law, people like Jaan – who has been told he has less than six months to live – will be able to access medicines to end his life, but only after two doctors and a High Court judge. Who will review the decision with the consent of.

Jan would like to die at home with her son and daughter by her side, but she knows that is unlikely, even if the bill passes, as she only has a few months to live.

“That leaves me with very poor options,” she says. “We need to make it right for people, give them the opportunity to have a comfortable passing – a comfortable death.”

• LIVE UPDATES: MPs split before vote on assisted dying bill
• Explained: What is assisted dying and when is the vote?
• Terminally ill: Two men close to death over what they want from the vote
• Close calls: MP talks about toughest decision of his career
• Chris Mason: Our politics editor says it’s unclear whether the vote will pass

But opponents of the bill worried, among other things, that legalizing assisted dying would put indirect pressure on people who were otherwise eligible.

Becky Bruno has cancer that has spread to her lungs. He is against any change in the law.

“My whole worry is that if I’m in a situation like I was two years ago, where I was in excruciating pain, and I don’t have anyone with me, I could potentially make the wrong decision,” she tells us. , “And a wrong decision is not something you can come back from. you’re dead.”

His view is partly motivated by his religious beliefs, but also by concerns that the bill would endanger people with disabilities or terminal illnesses.

This argument is often made by opponents of the law, and especially by those who live with a disability. They are concerned that the proposed law will devalue the lives of many vulnerable people.

Becky shares those fears. They say that this would open the way for people to be forcibly controlled or pressured to end their lives prematurely.

“This law potentially puts people in a position where they think they are a burden and the easier option is for them to end their lives. “This is very worrying, especially at a time when people are most vulnerable.”

Proposed bill in England and Wales comes with safeguards that supporters say would make it the strictest set of rules in the world

But others worry that if approved, the law on assisted dying could subsequently be loosened, meaning more people could have an assisted death.

Friday’s vote is the latest attempt to introduce assisted dying – it was first debated in Parliament in 1936.

The current bill – called the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill – has been introduced by Labor MP Kim Leadbeater.

She topped the MPs’ ballot and so her bill – known as a private members’ bill – is the first to be considered and probably has the best chance of becoming law.

Even though the government has remained neutral on the issue, and MPs can vote according to their beliefs, ministers have already come out in favor or against the bill.

The kindest thing for Sir Nicholas Mostyn, a retired High Court judge, would be to give him the option to end his life before his body deteriorates so much that he is no longer physically able to perform everyday tasks. .

Like Mark, he has been diagnosed with Parkinson’s but is not yet in the advanced stages of the disease.

“Chances are, if you have Parkinson’s disease, you will end up having a long and very unpleasant life,” he told BBC News. He supports the bill – even though it would not give him the right to end his life.

Symptoms of Parkinson’s include uncontrollable movements of parts of the body and slow movements. In the most advanced stages, people with the disease may find themselves unable to walk or speak.

Sir Nicholas, and some people suffering from other debilitating conditions which are not considered terminal illnesses, want the bill to be amended to cover them.

For some critics, this is an important reason to vote against it.

They fear, whether now or in the future, the bill could be extended to include people suffering from non-terminal conditions – this, they say, would be a threat to people with disabilities.

The most regularly cited example is Canada, which opponents say is an example of the so-called “slippery slope”.

Legislation introduced there in 2016 was initially only for terminally ill people, but in 2021 it was extended to people experiencing “unbearable suffering” from an irreversible illness or disability. Further expansion has been delayed, but it is still due to be available to people with mental illness in three years.

Sir Nicholas says: “I just don’t understand the moral argument that, because I want to exercise sovereignty over my own body, that I am somehow facilitating a ‘slippery slope’ to abusive treatment of those “Those who don’t actually (want to end their lives).”

Friday’s vote – if it passes – would mark the beginning of a lengthy parliamentary process; The committee will be scrutinized for weeks by a committee of lawmakers as they study the legislation line-by-line.

The bill will then return to the House of Commons and then the House of Lords where it can be amended in further votes.

Even if MPs vote in favor of the bill – there is still a long way to go before these proposed changes become law.

But if they do, it would be another significant reform to a law that has seen much change in our society over the last 50 years.