Part of a process.

Listening to the House of Lords debating a bill passing through the House regarding helping or assisting terminally ill patients to die.
The House is doing what we expect it to do which is to take the bill, sentence by sentence and examine it for its full meaning. The House is full of learned people, legal, medical, and people who have spent their lives in high responsible positions.
Given this forensic background there is a tendency to loose sight of the general purpose of a bill because of their quest to uncover blemishes, if there are any blemishes in the wording or intent of the bill. 


They were questioning the use of the words "assisted dying"and were suggesting the word assisted suicide be used. One argument was that because the bill would amend the legal status on suicide, it should be called so. A counter argument contended that 'assisted dying' was not the same as suicide and we were reminded that there was a wide variance between a person who wishes to take their life, because they are depressed, and a person who is terminally ill and in distress due to pain and wished to end their life. 
We have also seen the terrible condition of patients who have for instance, motor neurone disease or the locked in syndrome but in so far as I read the position, their terrible condition would not be covered by the phrase "terminally ill" which this bill is designed to cover.
When life becomes 'unbearable' is the condition attached and the bill states there has to be two doctors plus the agreement of the next of kin. Finally the drug administered has to be administered by the patient themselves.
The question of having two doctors to attend the final act brings into focus the anomaly we have today that few people can say they know their doctor. When I was growing up our doctor knew the family and did when required house calls. A far cry from today when you are nothing more than a statistic on the doctors list, in no way do they know you, you have your allotted time in front of them 8/9 minutes and then it's "next please". The concept of the doctor knowing your history, other than what is on the computer screen is facetious and the 'cautionary over site we would expect from "our" doctor is misplaced.
As in abortion there are a body of doctors who wouldn't take part in abortion, other than if the life of the mother was at risk so there are doctors willing for hire to assist in abortion. Would we not run into the same dilemma and that doctors who would assist in the process of assisting someone to die would assist on the basis as they would see it of fulfilling a medical necessity and see it all as part of a 'process'.
When it becomes 'a process' we must all worry since excruciating pain will be only one of many reasons to assist the person out of this life.