Loading…
Say your answer out loud first, then jot down the key points you made. Writing it helps you spot gaps — and it's what the AI feedback reads.
0 words
Ability to discuss a contested moral and political issue fairly, accurately and respectfully, weighing arguments rather than asserting a view.
A structure to build your own answer on — not a script.
Define and state the current position
Assisting suicide is illegal in the UK. A bill for terminally ill adults passed the Commons in 2025 but fell in the Lords; a 2026 bill was defeated at second reading (Sept 2026). Scotland's bill fell in March 2026. Distinguish from withdrawing treatment and palliative care (both lawful).
Arguments for
Autonomy over one's death; relief of suffering that palliative care cannot always address; current law pushes people abroad or to act alone; experience of other jurisdictions with safeguards.
Arguments against
Pressure on vulnerable, disabled or elderly people; difficulty of prognosis; risk to trust in doctors; inadequate palliative care; slippery-slope concerns about widening criteria.
Weigh
Which concerns can safeguards address? What evidence exists? What would change your mind?
Conclude respectfully
Give a considered view (or where you lean), acknowledging that doctors and the public are deeply divided and that as a doctor you'd care for patients regardless.
A strong but not perfect answer. Read the notes to see why it works — then make your own version with your experiences.
Assisted dying — helping a terminally ill adult with capacity to end their own life — is currently illegal throughout the UK1. Parliament has come close: a bill passed the Commons in 2025 but fell in the Lords, and a similar bill was narrowly defeated in the Commons this September. It's important to distinguish it from withdrawing treatment2 or giving palliative care that may shorten life as a side effect, both of which are already lawful.
The strongest argument for legalising it is autonomy: if a capable adult is dying and suffering, many people feel they should have control over the timing and manner of their death. Palliative care is excellent, but it can't relieve every kind of suffering, and some people currently travel abroad to die, or feel they must act while still able.
The strongest argument against3 is protection of the vulnerable. People who are elderly, disabled or feel a burden might feel pressure — even unspoken — to choose death. Prognosis is uncertain, so 'six months to live' can be wrong. Some worry about trust in doctors, and others argue we should fix unequal access to palliative care first so that no one chooses death because good care isn't available.
I think safeguards could address some of these concerns — multiple doctors, independent review, capacity assessments, the option for doctors to opt out. But I find the concern about subtle pressure hard to fully resolve, and I'd want to see how well safeguards work in practice in other countries.
Where I've landed is that I lean towards4 thinking it could be justified with very strong safeguards and properly funded palliative care alongside it — but I recognise this is a deeply divided question where thoughtful people, including doctors, disagree. Whatever the law, my job would be to care for every patient compassionately.
Real interviews are won and lost here. Answer each one aloud.