26. Nathan Stilwell on the Need for Compassionate Assisted Dying Legislation & End of Life Care

Welcome back to Humanism Now for a special episode coinciding with the critical upcoming UK Parliament vote on assisted dying — a pivotal moment we've long campaigned for and debated. In this episode we hear how what the bill entails, why it matters and how safe assisted dying aligns with values of compassion and autonomy.

Joining us is Nathan Stilwell, Humanists UK's Assisted Dying Campaign Coordinator, Campaigns and Communications Manager at My Death My Decision and a member of The Assisted Dying Coalition Secretariat.

Nathan joins us to discuss the context of this crucial vote, why Humanists UK champions this cause, and why now is the right time for change. We also address key societal concerns and shares how you can get involved to promote this cause and other important humanist issues.

SUPPORT THE CAMPAIGN - WRITE TO YOUR MP

Contact & follow Nathan Stilwell

• 📧 nathan@humanists.uk 
• ℹ️ Humanists UK Assisted Dying Campaign
• ✖️ Twitter 

Episode References:

• MPs to get first vote on assisted dying for nine years, BBC
• Humanists UK Statement on scope of the Assisted Dying Bill (22 Oct 2024)
• Former archbishop of Canterbury urges bishops in Lords to back assisted dying bill, The Guardian
• Medic MPs urge support for assisted dying bill, BBC
  BBC: Right-to-die man Tony Nicklinson dead after refusing food, BBC (2013)
  
  

Chapters

• 0:00 Intro to Nathan and why assisted dying reform matters
• 6:58 Religious & secular support assisted dying law change
• 9:17 What are the main arguments for assisted dying?
• 12:19 Is this the right time for change?
• 15:20 What is it like for Doctors to give and people to learn of this option
• 17:18 Addressing safeguarding and pressure concerns
• 25:44 What is the law change which Humanists UK is advocating for?
• 26:45 How to support assisted dying legislation change now
• 29:20 What has Nathan changed his mind on?

Transcript

Speaker 1: 0:01

Welcome to Humanism Now, the podcast for those active or curious about humanism and its causes around the world. I'm your host, james. This week we're recording a special episode, just a few days after a significant moment in UK history the first reading in more than a decade of a bill to legalise assisted dying in the UK. Mps will soon have the opportunity to vote on this historic bill, and Humanist UK have been at the forefront of the campaign to legalise compassionate assisted dying here in the UK, as it is already legal in many countries around the world. Joining us today is Nathan Stilwell, humanist UK's Assisted Dying Campaign Coordinator. Nathan has been instrumental in advocating for this campaign, bringing both his passion for the cause and extensive background in political communications. Before joining Humanists UK, nathan worked for the Joe Cox Foundation, where he championed social justice causes and spent time working in Brussels on political campaigns. His work with my Death, my Decision since early 2022 made him a key figure in the movement for assisted dying, and today he continues that vital work through Humanists UK and my Death, my Decision.

Speaker 1: 1:06

We're delighted that Nathan has joined us today to talk about the context of this vote, why Humanists UK feel the need to champion the cause of assisted dying and why he feels this time is the right time for change. Nathan will also address some of the key concerns often raised by wider society and provide insights into how you, the listener, can get involved and help promote this cause and other important humanist issues. Nathan, thank you so much for joining us on Humanism Now. Thank you very much for having me. As mentioned at the top, you've been very much involved in the campaign for assisted dying now for some years. Many of our listeners may recognise you from news TV appearances as well, championing the cause. I guess it'd be interesting to understand why this is an important issue for you personally and then also why you feel this is an important issue to be debated within Parliament now and this is the time for change.

Speaker 2: 1:57

I think, like a lot of people potentially listening into this podcast, I've known my view on assisted dying forever. I've never really been a deeply religious person and I have had family members who have experienced deaths and dying. That hasn't been compassionate and probably wasn't what they wanted. But I was never particularly passionate about this issue until I came across Humanist UK, until I started to consider myself a humanist and then it was very much reading the personal stories that just clearly defined my view on this.

Speaker 2: 2:28

And the moment you hear of some of the stories that I'm sure we get into, of people who have had to flee their own country to go to Switzerland for assisted death, or people who have suffered at home, or people who have experienced loved ones and family members and friends who have died horrendous deaths, that really drives the passion for this and the need for change. And the why now is an interesting question as well, because I think honestly like we're very late to this game, both as a country and politically. We are actually incredibly late. Why now is because it should have been done 10 years ago and we're only getting to it now. So it's desperate that this law changes now because so many people want and need to see the law change.

Speaker 1: 3:11

Yes, and this is obviously a key time. The next few weeks are going to be crucial in this debate. But you mentioned it was really through humanism that you discovered this cause. I think that might be quite interesting for people in Humanist UK. They have obviously been at the forefront of the campaign A lot of the coverage of the recent weeks. Prominent Humanist UK staff and patrons have been leading the cause. Can you explain why you feel this particular issue aligns with humanist values? What is it about Sister Dine that particularly aligns with both Humanist UK as an organisation and the humanist worldview?

Speaker 2: 3:44

I think there's two key things that kind of stand out. And the first one is taking that step back in that kind of philosophical worldview and that's, you know, in the sense of we don't believe there's a deity out there telling us how we should die, what our last days should be, we don't believe in a second coming or judgment day and we don't have a scripture or book that tells us this isn't something that we should do. So the way I view humanism to kind of be overly reductive about it, is I want to treat you in the way that I think you should treat me and I wouldn't want you to suffer. I wouldn't want anybody I know to suffer at the end of their days. I'd want them to have choice and compassion and dignity when they die. And I think, reflecting on those values, I also think about my own death and I think about the very end of life and I know that if I was suffering in the final months and weeks of my life, I'd want to be able to say, okay, I've had enough, I've made that decision and it is my death and therefore it is my decision. And I think that really leads into the second kind of factor is the reason Humanist UK campaigned so much about this is again because of that human element.

Speaker 2: 4:53

So 10 years ago Humanist UK were involved in the Nicholson case. Tony Nicholson was a man with locked-in syndrome. He'd suffered a catastrophic stroke on a business trip in Athens and he came back and he could only move his eyes. He could only communicate through moving his eyes. Now he had years to contemplate his situation. He thought long and hard about it. He'd had offers of palliative care and counseling and he came to the conclusion that this should be his choice, that he should be able to die on his own terms. And Humanist UK supported that case. They took it through the courts. Now they lost the case that the court said this is something for Parliament to decide. But actually that's why Humanist UK's policy developed and that's why they campaigned on this issue. And again it's that very human element. It's that there's a human being at the heart of Humanist UK's policy.

Speaker 2: 5:45

And what's quite interesting as well is, as the debate has picked up and picked up in the UK, we've had to develop our policy a lot more. In the past I think it was quite a principled policy. This is what we believe it should look like, who we believe should have access and essentially we believe in the principle of assisted dying and more and more recently we've had to answer questions about what that would actually look like and what the methods would be and where the lines in the sand would be. And can a doctor administer this or can't they, and how would that work? And that's really a sense of, I think, the political side heating up.

Speaker 2: 6:15

We're getting more and more questions from politicians and groups and advocacy organizations saying where should this line be, and we've had to develop our policy in line with that. But again, that's always been kind of human centered. We're always looking back and saying the person going through this process is, by definition, dying and suffering. Therefore, how can we keep them at the heart of this decision? So it's a very human outlook and worldview that makes us decide that, a this is something that's right, but B this is something that we should campaign to change because currently the status quo is wrong.

Speaker 1: 6:49

Yeah, I can certainly see that alignment. Thank you very much for sharing, but I'm interested to know as well you mentioned obviously how this clearly aligns with a humanist worldview. Have you found support and unity from religious groups or other groups in society that also feel that this is the right thing to do?

Speaker 2: 7:06

Absolutely so. Interestingly, when we look at polling and surveys and focus groups and things like that, actually people with a religious outlook also support assisted dying. Especially the average person on the streets would support assisted dying, no matter what kind of religion they subscribe to, and I think as well that's very much going back to the personal aspects of what they have. If you had a loved member who has suffered or gone through a horrendous death, you are obviously a lot more likely to view that as wrong. No matter what your worldview is. To have that real human element of having someone you love suffer at the very end of their life, it's, of course, going to change your worldview and it's, of course, going to make you more supportive of this. And so we know that practicing Christians and even non-practicing Christians support this. People from all religious groups support this. Where the difficulty is, a lot of the time it's the religious institutions that don't support it or it's the powerful people at the top of these religious institutions who don't support it.

Speaker 2: 8:04

So we've seen very recently, since the debate has hottened up, that bishops have been really vocal in their opposition to assisted dying, which has really come out of the woodwork. It's really clear lines that these bishops have come up against assisted dying. But even then there's a former archbishop of canterbury and george carey who is supportive of assisted dying. So even at the very top there's not a clear consensus on assisted dying and you know, to be perfectly honest and balanced, that goes both ways. There are obviously humanists who are against their assisted dying to their own views, their own reasons, but really the majority of the public support this, no matter what your background is. And it's really interesting to start to see where these kind of pockets of opposition are coming from and, especially as the the debate heats up, they're getting more and more vocal yes, I think so, and it seems like for most people that you speak to, it really comes down to.

Speaker 1: 8:54

this is that they are concerned about the issues and understand the points on both sides. I think most people feel that some form of this assisted time process should be available for those who really need it, but obviously they have concerns about how it is implemented, what the sort of boundaries are on that, and that's the debate which, fortunately, we're having now, so hopefully this will mean making that first step. So what are the main arguments presented for assisted dying? And I'm thinking here also what have been the main arguments, not just in the uk, but that we've seen, as this has become a more commonplace part of society around the world?

Speaker 2: 9:32

I think the two kind of clear arguments are around reducing suffering, choice and autonomy. To really simplify, it is that people are suffering now and even with the best care possible, some people are going to die in pain and suffering, and then that this is my death, this is my decision. It should be a choice that I have over my own body. But as the debate really gets going, one of the things that I think I'm saying more and more to politicians and I think it is one of the most effective arguments right now is that the status quo, what we have right now in the UK, is just clearly horrible and clearly not working, and I think what I'm trying to show is that there's almost universal support for that. So very recently I think even this weekend all previous directors of public prosecutions have come out and said the law is not working. And those are the people who decide on these really extreme cases. When someone has, for example, accompanied someone to Switzerland, or maybe someone even more extreme, maybe someone's taken the life of their loved one or their wife or their husband or something like that, because that person has a terminal illness, these director of public prosecutions have to say whether they will publicly prosecute whether it's in the public's interest to send this person to jail, because you can go to jail for 14 years for this. And all of these people have said it's totally wrong and the law is putting me into tears because it's just so wrong and it's forcing families into horrible circumstances.

Speaker 2: 10:58

And similarly, switzerland when people go to switzerland for assisted death, which is quite kind of people know about it. You know dignitas is kind of a household name. When you look at that, that's horrible. You know, forcing someone out of their own country, out of their home, out of their local area, forcing their loved ones to not be with them, because their loved ones could face 14 years in jail to be with them, to go to a foreign country, just to be able to die in painless, and you know with dignity how horrendous is that as a country we do that. And then what might?

Speaker 2: 11:30

Again, it may be difficult for people to listening in to hear this, but we do know that things like suicide packs and mercy killings are on the rise and are increasing when elderly couples and couples, you know, when one of the couple has a terminal illness. We've seen that there's been very high profile cases recently and one of the UK top coroners I think it was two years ago said this is increasing and is going to increase without a compassionate law, and so one of the biggest arguments that I'm trying to get across when I'm talking to people at the moment is there is one element of getting this law right which we absolutely have to do, but there's another element, which is what we've got right now is just so horrendously wrong that anything we do would be better than the system that we've got right now.

Speaker 1: 12:15

Yes, I think that's probably something that there's probably universal support for be something that there's probably universal support for. But what do you say to the argument that, yes, people were probably in agreement that the system needs improving, but you're bringing this forward at a time when the NHS is in the worst state that it's been in for how many decades, let's say, and in terms of public funding and all the issues that need to be fixed in the world? You know, there may be many people who say they're supportive of this, but there are other things that they see as more important right now.

Speaker 2: 12:42

I understand that argument completely. I think counter-argument to that is, firstly, if not now, when Our systems are never going to be perfect Our systems are run by human beings who aren't perfect and so if you are, for example, a person with a terminal illness right now, a person with stage four cancer, listening in, is right now a person with stage four cancer listening in, that argument doesn't have any ways, because you're dying, you're suffering, you want this choice and dignity and autonomy, and putting this off isn't going to to help anyone. So that, again, that there's that element of we need to do something now and we should have done something a long while ago to get these people this kind of choice and autonomy. And secondly, looking abroad as well, switzerland's had an assisted dying law for 80 years. The US state of Oregon has had an assisted dying law for 27 years. We can see in these countries that people who go for assisted dying almost always have had good palliative care, have had excellent care, have had a good support at the end of their lives. They're just saying, okay, now has hit the point where my pain and my suffering has reached a point where there's nothing I can do, and so we know the types of people who are using this are normally going to be the wealthiest in society, the people who have had the most care and everything like that. So it isn't a lack of care that pushes assisted dying. It's just an end of life process that happens and, again, that's something that we should be implementing now. And finally, assisted dying doesn't hurt any healthcare practice.

Speaker 2: 14:10

There was a 14-month inquiry into assisted dying.

Speaker 2: 14:14

That happened just last year, and one of their key findings from this 14-month inquiry was, when you have an assisted dying law, your palliative care and your end-of-life care actually improves.

Speaker 2: 14:26

In these countries that have introduced end-of-life laws, they've seen massive increases in palliative care funding. They've seen a change in how palliative care funding is funded and the way that it works, and I think that's because this debate puts quite a bit of focus on end-of-life care and the end-of-life which often isn't spoken about. So, even by having this debate alone, you're putting more focus in the right places. You're putting more focus on the places that need improvements, and that is a positive thing, and that's why this debate should happen, and it should happen now, kicking this can down the road, because, as I said, if you're suffering right now, you want that relief. You want to know that if my suffering gets so much that my quality of life is below what I want, then I have that backup option. But I just have that choice and that has a palliative effect. That's such a relieving effect to have just to know that, just if everything gets too much, there is this option that is available, that is dignified and compassionate yeah.

Speaker 1: 15:21

So you'd imagine that just giving people that autonomy and we keep returning to this word choice would actually really impact the way in which people approach their own care as well. I guess the not knowing is going to be torture for people.

Speaker 2: 15:33

Well, I've spoken to assessing doctors who go through this process in Canada, belgium, new Zealand, australia, the Netherlands, switzerland, and one thing that's really striking is all of those countries have very different systems, very different safeguards. They've done it in very different ways. One of the things that's universal, which is so interesting, is when I talk to doctors about what's that assessment like. What is it like when they tell a patient okay, you've met all the criteria, I'm confident that this is safe, I'm going to allow you. When you choose to have an assisted death, what's that like? And they say what's so interesting is it's all in the shoulders. And you kind of go, what's that about? And they say, the moment I say you've got the green light, they watch the shoulders drop and they see the side of release because again, it's just that relief of just if it gets too much, there's that option available.

Speaker 2: 16:22

And we also know from countries like Oregon that a lot of people who are prescribed this end of life medication, some of them don't take it, some of them just have it as that backup option and actually they die peaceful, natural deaths that most people want, surrounded by their families, in their own beds, surrounded by loved ones, but for some people, they have that suffering and then the final days, weeks, they go okay, now's the time. I'd like to die a dignified death now. And so, again, that was the effect that attaining the law is going to have. Is just for so many people who were so desperate for it, just this backup option and that can actually allow them to live longer, that can allow them to push through a bit more than they normally would have, because they know in the back of their minds that there's this kind of dignified exit route.

Speaker 1: 17:11

Yes, focuses the mind on the will and the reasons to live for a little bit longer until, as you say, it becomes unbearable. But you mentioned safeguarding and I think this is the issue that comes up most often. Certainly, we've heard since this bill was announced this is the word that comes up most often as the concern. How do you address that? What are the main objections that you're hearing and what would be your?

Speaker 2: 17:30

retort to those. It's just that the status quo is so horrendously horrendous. What people are going through in the UK right now is terrible, and any system is going to be better than the no system at all. So in the UK you can, for example, stop eating and drinking. That's a legal thing that you can do. You can refuse treatment if you're at the end of your life, and people we know are doing that. And again, there are no safeguards around there. It would be so much better if someone made that decision that they would have to speak to an individual, they would have to go through the process, and that's why introducing any safeguards and regulations is going to be better than none. So the safeguards we're proposing and to caveat that right now we haven't seen a bill. All that's happened so far is that the long title and short title of the bill has been read out loud, and so we don't actually know what the safeguards are going to be inside this bill.

Speaker 2: 18:18

And that's what probably the politicians working on it right now are desperately trying to kind of iron out. And they're going to look at countries abroad, but universally, in pretty much all countries, it's the same sort of thing, which is two independent doctors. One of them, you'd hope, would be a family doctor or a GP or someone who knows the patient quite intimately and knows this is something that they want, and the second would be a specialist in the conditions. If you've got a stage four cancer or motor neuronal disease or a neurological condition, it would be hopefully an expert in that condition. And those two doctors, independent of each other, would have to have an in-depth conversation and we're very clear about that. We want these conversations to be in-depth and really delve into the reasons why. I think it's universal that the first question if someone comes to an autistic doctor and says I want to assist at death, the doctor's first question should be why. I think that's a very important question and so that idea of these two doctors being independent of each other and putting this person through this process where they have to explain why they go through the condition, they make sure the condition is clearly terminal and it's going to tick all these boxes, I think is an important step.

Speaker 2: 19:21

Another step is that the person must be of sound mind throughout the entire process. They must understand what they're doing, what they're asking for, from the very first request until the very end request and again, that end request must be something like do you understand what's about to happen? Why have you chosen this? Do you understand that this is going to be the end of your life? And that's very clear. And if the doctor has any doubt about that, the process must stop or they must get some sort of kind of psychiatric assessment to make sure that it's crystal clear.

Speaker 2: 19:49

This person understands what they're doing and they're going through the process and within all that, the only other thing that's pretty universal across every single of the you know 31 jurisdictions that have assisted dying now is that doctors must be able to conscientiously object, and humanist uk. That's a really important fact. You know, humanists have campaigned to conscientious objection for, you know, a century. So it must be very important that doctors who don't want to be part of this aren't part of this, and that system clearly works abroad. So that's another thing that will be baked in. Now, as for the other safeguards and the routes and everything like that, that remains to be seen, and when the bill is published, we will be going through it with a fine comb to check every single safeguard.

Speaker 2: 20:31

But what's really important here is that, by definition, the person going through this process is dying or suffering, and so it's really important that we don't force them through unnecessary hoops and through unnecessary bureaucracy. For example, can you imagine someone with stage four cancer having to go in front of a kind of a court or something like that and having to plead their case, or having to go through all these extra steps to do something that they want to? That's something that we're really clear is obviously we want this to be the safest law possible. That's crystal clear. Everybody campaigning on this wants this to be a safe and workable law. But we do have to make sure that it's not so cumbersome, not so restrictive, not so difficult.

Speaker 2: 21:17

If we bake in so many different levels of safety, is it going to get to a point where people are going to die or people are going to suffer before they can actually get through this process. And again, that's another angle that we're going to be going to these politicians and making sure that they have this patience in their mind when they are developing this bill and when the bill is going through the process. And again, sorry for another caveat is whatever is about to be published will go through such a long process to get to its final stage. So the bill is published in the first instance will be amended and there'll be debates back and forth about the nitty gritty aspects of it. And again, throughout that whole debate, we'll keep going back to the politicians and saying keep the patient in mind, make this a compassionate system, safe and compassionate. It's possible and that's something that they should be doing.

Speaker 1: 22:03

I think finding that balance is really crucial the right amount of checks with allowances for, as you say, the personal situation that people are in. But how do you mitigate for this issue? One of the main points that's coming back is how do you mitigate for the actual influences and pressures that are put on the individual to come to this decision? Yes, they may say that this is purely their own decision. They fully understand, but I think what a lot of people are worried about is both external pressures maybe family members, others putting pressure on the individual or indeed their own sense of burden or guilt which might influence their decision. How do you mitigate for that?

Speaker 2: 22:43

I think, by creating a safe and workable and regulated system. So again now for people going to Switzerland. Switzerland does have safety measures and they have safeguards and guidance for centres which do the assisted deaths. You know the Dignitas, the famous one but the moment they leave UK soil we don't have any control over those safety measures. And again for people stopping eating and drinking and refusing treatment. What this does is puts in safety measures to be able to check for those.

Speaker 2: 23:07

And so, when it comes to kind of family pressures, external factors that's why these in-depth conversations with the doctors are so important. So a really clear-cut example is if I were to go to a doctor and say I would like an assisted death because I'm a burden, the doctor would say no, that's crystal clear. Being a burden is not an eligibility criteria of this assisted death. Now if I went to a doctor and said I've got terminal cancer, I'm on so much morphine right now that either I'm not really sure what's going on or I'm in so much pain I can't talk to my friends and family and loved ones and therefore all I feel like is a burden. Now that's a completely different question. That's very clear that it's the illness that's the cause of the burden, it's the illness that's causing the person to suffer and their reasoning is still intrinsic in the part of the fact that they are dying and that person should be eligible.

Speaker 2: 24:01

And by having these two independent doctors, this long process, inevitably to go through this process it will take time, which is when people are considering and everything like that. It gives opportunity to delve into these internal factors. It's going to be crystal clear If someone is going to two different doctors independently, you know they won't be able to speak to this doctor with their family in the room. Those sort of external pressure factors are going to be clear and they're going to come through.

Speaker 2: 24:27

And again we can look at these 31 jurisdictions that have assisted dying laws and see that what happens actually more common is the family to coerce the person to not go through with the assisted death, to actually say you know, I'm quite religious, please don't do this, I'm going to be out of your door, I'm going to be praying to you, I'm going to be doing all this kind of stuff.

Speaker 2: 24:45

What we see quite often is family members objecting to the assisted death process, and so that's again why it's really important that the individual is in control, that the patient is in control throughout this entire process, and so again I know I'm going to be repeating myself, but I am doing it somewhat deliberately is the system that we have right now has introduce safeguards, which would be opportunities to spot things like coercion and spot these pressures and be able to look at these pressures in depth and understand them, but that we don't have right now, and so the option of just not legalizing this because we're too scared of these pressures is to really again kick the can down the road and just not accept that the system we have right now is not working.

Speaker 1: 25:34

Thank you, nathan, that you've been very generous with your time and I know you're super busy with the campaign. I just have a couple more questions before we wrap up, but I think, just for clarity, what is the law change which Humans UK my Death, my Decision and others are campaigning for in bringing forward this bill?

Speaker 2: 25:52

So we want to change the 1961 suicide act, and that was the act that decriminalized suicide. So when we say committing suicide, we're actually saying something very false, because you can't commit suicide because suicide's not a crime. But what the 1961 law did was introduce the offense of assisting or encouraging a suicide, and it's that element of assisting that's really caused the issues. When we've seen people accompany others abroad, to Switzerland, they could face up to 14 years in jail. So what we want to do is create a new law that creates safeguards, that gives individuals a clearly defined route, if they are suffering, if they are terminally ill, to have that option, that dignified option of an assisted death, and that includes all the safeguards that we've already discussed. But what it would do is introduce a legal method for someone who is dying to end their life.

Speaker 1: 26:45

Essentially, and for anyone who's listening, who may want to actively support this campaign or help encourage their MPs to vote. Support this campaign or help encourage their MPs to vote. What advice can you give to anyone who wants to champion this code ahead of the vote on I think it's the 29th of November.

Speaker 2: 27:03

Yeah, so the vote's the 29th of November and please, please, please, please, write your MP about this now. Write your politician about this now, and I hear lots of excuses. Oh, you know, my politician votes for this party, or my politician votes against it for the past, or even my politician supports it and therefore I'm not going to write to them. Doesn't matter. Please write your MP now and tell them it's the 29th. I want you to be there in person because it's going to be on a Friday, which is when some politicians go back to their constituencies to campaign and vote. We want them to stay in parliament and you want them to vote for it. And it's really important because some politicians, and actually quite a few of them we've got a very new parliament, we've got quite a few fresh politicians who have never dealt with an issue like this before and they're unsure, and so they will be reading their emails and they will be looking at their post back and they'll be determining.

Speaker 2: 27:54

You know, what do the people who vote for me feel about this issue, and that's why it's so important that you write to them. So Google, you know, find my MP, get their address, their email address, and write to them and say this is a really important issue. This is something I support. Please do it, no matter who your MP is, no matter what they've got in the past, because, for example, even if they're supported, if they're getting a ton of emails from probably religious institutions saying don't vote for this, that might make them waver, and so even a letter saying I know you support this, please continue to support this, because it's really important to me, will be the most important thing.

Speaker 2: 28:29

And if you have a personal story, if you have a loved one that's had a horrendous death, share that experience with your MP. Share that human element, because we're not debating this just for an interesting ethical conversation. We're debating this because it affects real people and MPs need to know that, and so it is really important that you get in contact with them now. You can also tweet them or any way of getting in contact. Obviously, do it politely and do it with respect for their worldview and their opinion. You can also tweet them or any way of getting in contact.

Speaker 1: 28:54

obviously, do it politely and do it with respect for their worldview and their opinion, but now is the time to write them and I think, when you hear those personal stories and many of them have been mentioned in recent weeks, because this is back in the news cycle and I'm sure there'll be many more personal stories shared over before the vote is cast as you say, we're in a horrible situation at the moment and we can correct it, we can improve it for many people. So, nathan, thank you so much for your time. Before we go, I do have my one final standard closing question, which is what is something which you have changed your mind on recently?

Speaker 2: 29:25

I think one of the things I've changed my mind on to be a bit disruptive is I think our political system does need a bit of overhaul. I think that the moment this debate heated up, it got quite nasty quite quickly and it's been really difficult for politicians. But also the way this law will physically change is very strange. It's done through a private member's bill process, which I won't go through now but I'd recommend Googling it and it's a very strange system and essentially we need to find a way of doing politics with more compassion, with more evidence, with more reason, and all those things can be combined.

Speaker 2: 29:58

So I think I've been a bit more hardened that actually that we probably need a lot more change than we actually have right now, but hopefully we're going in the right direction. And for every kind of bit of nastiness I have seen, I have met with a politician that's been very compassionate, very down to earth. So it's not all politics that's bad at all. Actually it's the opposite. There's a lot of good in politics, but sometimes the system is stopping that good from bubbling to the surface. I think we should probably do something about that.

Speaker 1: 30:25

If there was one change to the political system in the UK that you could propose like a simple thing that could ease the process, what would that be?

Speaker 2: 30:34

That's such a a good question and I'm not a political scientist and actually I didn't do politics. I've never done politics at school or university or anything like that, so I'm going to leave that for someone cleverer than me and someone better than me. But it's probably an overhaul of the kind of the private members bill process, which is very strange, and it literally includes a big glass ball filled with smaller wooden balls and they pick out a number and that's who gets to change the law. So again, if there's any system like that, it's a bit too strange and probably should be changed.

Speaker 1: 31:01

I can certainly support your idea and I'm sure all of our listeners would be keen to see more compassion, evidence and reason involved in our politics. So, nathan Stilwell, thank you so much, not only for joining us today, but for all your tireless work for Humanist UK and on this campaign. Nathan, thank you for joining us on Humanism Now.