IT HAS been described as “utterly inadequate” by a former Supreme Court president, while the existing alternative is “dangerous and cruel” according to senior doctors – but what makes the proposed Assisted Dying Bill so controversial?

The bill is set to be debated by MPs in the House of Commons today and would allow doctors to prescribe a lethal dose of medication to terminally-ill patients who request it and are deemed to have six months or less to live.

Everyone from Prime Minister David Cameron to the Archbishop of Canterbury has had their say on the bill, with supporters believing it gives a fundamental right to self-determination, and those against it suggesting its enactment would be a “slippery slope” towards accepting that part of the role of medicine is to kill people.

Labour’s Rob Marris, MP for Wolverhampton South West, put the bill forward and has sparked fierce debate between right-to-die campaigners and religious leaders.

It prompted the heads of Britain’s Christian, Jewish, Muslim and Sikh communities to write a joint letter to MPs urging them to throw out the bill, and Downing Street has said David Cameron opposes any move to legalise assisted dying.

Firstly there is the issue of principle – should someone be free to end their own life?

Secondly there is the practical debate over whether the proposed legislation allows this to be possible while offering safeguards against abuse.

Southampton Itchen MP Royston Smith, pictured below, told the Daily Echo he has received a wealth of correspondence on the issue and said: “I will attend the debate today and listen to all the arguments.

Daily Echo: Cllr Royston Smith oversees the demolition work on the old C&A buliding, Above Bar, Southampton. (26130606)

“Currently I still remain nervous about the safeguards and the danger of people feeling pressured into a decision they may not really want to make because they feel like they are a burden.

“I am also not sure people understand the implications of this decision and the potential for sleepwalking into a full euthanasia policy in the future, which I am not in favour of.”

Alan Whitehead, MP for Southampton Test, pictured below, said the issue was one that affected him personally during the final days of his parents’ lives.

Daily Echo: Alan Whitehead (34288453)

He said: “The whole question revolves around the issue of informed consent andhow that would and whether these people who are involved in the process really can be seen to be acting under their own will.

“It was difficult to ascertain what [my parents] wanted to happen. Sometimes you have got a very clear picture of what people want to happen, then you can second guess it subsequently.”

Caroline Nokes, MP for Romsey and Southampton North, is less equivocal on the issue.

She said: “I will be voting against the assisted dying bill because it is, in its current form poorly-written, and does not provide appropriate safeguards.

“I have been contacted by many hundreds of constituents, most of whom are opposed to the bill, and I believe this demonstrates how uncomfortable the people of my constituency are with the bill in its current form.”

Politicians and religious leaders have expressed strong misgivings about the bill although Archbishop Justin Welby insisted his opposition is based on the effect new laws would have on society, rather than advancing a religious viewpoint.

A recurring criticism of the bill is its lack of safeguards and this is a view point shared by Fareham MP Suella Fernandes, pictured below.

Daily Echo: 18.3.15 Reception to launch Echo's coverage of General Election at Echo offices, Redbridge. Pictured:Suella Fernandes, Conservative candidate Fareham (34451759)

Ms Fernandes confirmed she will vote against the bill and said: “The bill refers to people who could ‘reasonably be expected to die’ within six months and this definition is much more vague than it sounds, and would include many disabled people who in fact have lived fulfilling lives for many years.

“The bill also fails to acknowledge the negative assumptions that people make about their own quality of life when they are diagnosed with a terminal illness or disability.

“These feelings of depression and despair can change over time. People need support to come to terms with these feelings, rather than help to end their lives.”

But a group of healthcare professionals including neurosurgeon Henry Marsh and Sir Muir Gray, the NHS’s chief knowledge officer, have urged MPs to back the new laws, referring to the status quo as being “in direct conflict” with their duty of care to patients.

Mims Davies, MP for Eastleigh, said she was not against assisted dying in principle, but said any new legislation would require cast iron checks.

She said: “I do think there needs to be a much broader debate on assisted dying that would include comprehensive reforms of the NHS and palliative care to allow for confidence in any system to tandem with new laws.

“I am mindful that there has also been a lot of scaremongering over fears that disabled people or those frail and ill will be put under pressure to end their lives, but I don’t personally believe that would happen in this country.”

New Forest East MP Julian Lewis, pictured below, told the Daily Echo he has long been opposed to assisted dying due to practical difficulties.

Daily Echo: New Forest East MP Julian Lewis (29454552)

He said: “The debate has been led by a number of very articulate people who are set and determined that this is what they want to do.

“Their circumstances should not be allowed to mask the fact that many people are very vulnerable to pressure from others.

“You can put safeguards up to a person who might put a person under pressure to end their lives, but you can never put a guard between a person and their own thought processes.”

Gosport MP Caroline Dinenage said: “I will be in my Gosport constituency today carrying out longstanding engagements, however the nature of private members bills means that MPs have a number of opportunities to vote on the subject.

“When the bill returns to the house I will think extremely carefully about the concerns raised on both sides of the argument, and shall read the Hansard transcript of today’s debate thoroughly.”