Unusually, there are two separate - and equally compelling - stories today on the quandaries faced by seriously ill people wishing to end their lives.
Prosecutors have said they will not press charges against the parents of Daniel James, the 23-year-old who ended his life after a rugby accident left him paralysed.
The Crown Prosecution has, the Guardian argues, "effectively ruled out the prosecution of relatives who assist the terminally ill to commit suicide".
Even more attention in today's papers is paid to a documentary broadcast tonight on Sky TV following the last moments of Craig Ewert, 59, who has motor neurone disease, as he ends his life at a Swiss clinic. The cameras remain in the room as Ewert's wife says goodbye to him.
"Can I give you a big kiss?" she says, shortly before he drinks a fatal draught of drugs. "I love you, sweetheart, so much. Have a safe journey and see you some time."
The Daily Mail takes a divided view. While the main story – an interview with Ewert's widow, Mary – is sensitively done, the paper's editorial is decidedly unimpressed:
Leave aside the danger that depressives may be encouraged to take their own lives. Forget that in British law, assisted suicide still goes by its proper name of murder.
What sort of society have we become, when the killing of a man is broadcast on prime time TV in the name of entertainment?
It's not unusual for the Mail to miss the point. But it is rare for it to misjudge the mood of its readers. And here, I think it has. Many of the comments left on the paper's website are generally far more thoughtful and nuanced, and a number of readers clearly have personal experience of the issues involved:
Pat in London says:
I don't see why death should be airbrushed out of life (which TV shows). Why is it OK to watch a pretend death which may be quite gory (on a TV cop show) but not a real one (which has obviously been OK'd by the person themselves and their family)?
It's a similar story over on the Sun's message boards, where the usual rough-and-tumble (and cynicism) of many web debates is put to one side.
One reader comments:
This programme will obviously highlight a very hard and, for some, very emotional issue. If some find it offensive or unwarranted then they should not watch it, but you can only be objective to something when you understand it.
Another says:
I saw a clip of tonight's programme on Sky News this morning. It was extremely moving, it was full of love between a proud man and his wife, who got to share every moment together right till the end.
Others disagree, but the abiding tone (so far) is of respect and considered thought. When so many debates online degenerate so fast into mutual abuse, it's enough to restore your faith.
