There are few issues more controversial, more divisive.

Assisted dying polarises opinion.

But it’s a difficult conversation that needs to be had because ultimately death affects us all.

Even if you are fortunate enough to never be directly impacted by an assisted death you will almost certainly be indirectly affected if the End of Life Bill passes into law.

It would be the biggest social change to British society many of us would ever see in our lifetimes.

And after patients and their immediate families, it’s the country’s doctors who will be the most affected by any change in the law.

Like society, the medical community is divided on the issue.

One senior doctor said: “It’s like Brexit, but worse.”

Another told me: “Emotions are running high”.

These are the milder, reportable comments.

There is bitterness and mistrust. The deep-rooted anger leads to each side accusing the other of deliberately spreading misinformation, “what-iffery” and “shenanigans” in the lead-up to the final vote next week.

We asked two senior doctors to share their views on assisted dying with us and each other.

Dr Mark Lee is a consultant in palliative care.

“I have worked in this field for 25 years and looked after thousands of patients at the end of their lives. I am against the assisted dying bill because I believe it poses risks to patients, to families, to doctors and to palliative care.”

‘We can get this right’

Dr Jacky Davis is a consultant radiologist and a campaigner for assisted dying legislation in this country.

One of the arguments put forward by opponents of assisted dying is that Britain ranks highest among countries in its delivery of palliative care. And there is no need for such a radical change in end of life care.

It is not an argument Dr Davis accepts.

She said: “The status quo at the moment means a number of people are dying bad deaths every day. 300 million people around the world have access to assisted dying and more legislation is in the pipeline and no place that has taken up a law on assisted dying has ever reversed it. So we can learn from other places, we can get this right, we can offer people a compassionate choice at the end of life.”

Read more:
MPs criticise Esther Rantzen’s intervention
Assisted dying law ‘unworkable’ and ‘naive’

Most deaths in palliative care ‘peaceful’

Dr Lee accepts palliative care has its limitations but this is a result of underfunding. This national conversation, he argues, is an opportunity to address some of those failings and improve end of life care.

“I think the NHS currently is not resourcing the situation enough to be able to provide the patients with the choice that they need to get the care that they needed and that is because they are not getting the choice and because palliative care is patchy. But in my day-to-day work, and I’ve worked in palliative care for 25 years, normal death is peaceful, comfortable, and does not involve people dying in pain.”

“I absolutely agree with Mark,” Dr Davis responded. “The vast majority of people will die a peaceful death and do not have the need for an assisted death. And I absolutely am with him that palliative care in this country has been treated abysmally. Nobody should have to hold a jumble sale in order to fund a hospice. That’s terrible.

“What I didn’t hear from Mark is, while the vast majority of people will die a peaceful death and have got nothing to fear facing death, there are people who have diagnoses where they know that they are likely to face a difficult death and will face a difficult death.

“What are you offering to the people who aren’t going to die a peaceful death? And what are you offering to people who are so afraid that that’s going to happen that they will take their own lives or will go abroad to seek an assisted death?”

Concerns about pressure on NHS

One important voice that has been missing from the national assisted dying debate is that of the NHS.

Senior leaders will not speak on the issue until the fate of the bill is decided. And its understandable why. It is not clear what role the health service would have if the bill passes.

Dr Lee warned that his NHS colleagues were “extremely worried”, going further to say assisted dying would “break the NHS”.

He added, that the country’s already under-pressure hospice sector would struggle to cope with staff “walking away from the job if they are forced to be involved in any way”.

Dr Davis refuses to accept these warnings, arguing that the challenge to the health service is being overstated.

“I think it’s really important to take a step back and say this would be a very small number of deaths. And this is very small in terms of the other things that are coming through big drug discoveries, big new surgeries, all the rest of it this would be very small in terms in terms of money.”

The two doctors did agree on one thing. That every patient is entitled to a pain free and dignified death.

Dr Lee said: “I look at the whites of the eyes of people every day with that. I stand in that place every day. And that is shameful that anyone in this day and age should die in that position. Jacky and I can agree on that. That is unacceptable. But it still doesn’t justify the response that we meet suffering with killing someone, rather than addressing the needs that are in front of us.”

Dr Davis responded by saying: “You say you’ve looked in the whites of patients’ eyes at the end, and I’d say looking into the whites of patients eyes and listening to what they’re asking for when they’ve been offered everything that you can offer them and they’re still saying, ‘I’ve had enough’, then we should follow the example of other countries and say, ‘we will help you’.”

These are the two very divided opinions of two NHS doctors, but these are the same arguments that will be taking place in hospitals, hospices, offices, factories and living rooms across the country.

In about a week’s time, it will be down to the politicians to decide.

Here we go again.

It was not long after 8pm when a police announcement over a tannoy mounted on their armoured vehicles reverberated around for all to hear.

“Force is about to be used against violent individuals,” blasted from the speakers as locals, some masked, stood waiting for action.

“You better be filming this,” one man said as we captured the scenes for Sky News amid a growing sense from locals that the police were being heavy handed in their tactics.

And then officers, holding their shields, surged forward as people edged back.

The move seemed to further anger the residents who had gathered, almost goading them as tensions ran high.

The pace of clashes was slower on this, the third night of conflict. But it was nevertheless just as ugly and messy.

Eyewitness: It is hard to see where the violence will end

Soon came the baton rounds, the firebombs, the water cannon. Those pelting the police seemed unfazed as they were battered with plastic bullets in return. The watching crowd cheered the rioters on.

Police chiefs earlier defended their operation. A senior officer insisted he did have “a grip” on the unravelling situation when questioned by Sky News.

The increased presence of officers was felt on the ground and was clear to see. The soundtrack of sirens swirled around this town once again as police lurched from incident to incident as pockets of violence flared up.

Officers are on their way from Scotland, England and Wales to help bolster resources. And they won’t be short of work.

A leisure centre 25 minutes away in Larne came under attack on Wednesday evening after it emerged some of the foreign families fleeing the Ballymena chaos were being temporarily held there.

A short drive around Ballymena’s one way road system takes you on a journey through housing estates where people have flooded the streets with union jack flags and stuck yellow A4 sheets to their windows with the words, “LOCALS LIVE HERE”.

These colourful displays are being seen as a public noticeboard of the nationality of the occupants inside each home. A deterrent to make the angry mob to look elsewhere.

And those failing to advertise whether they are a ‘native’ or not seem to be paying a price.

I witnessed an upper floor flat with a window smashed, the guttering on fire and the ground outside ablaze. An older neighbour fled her home downstairs in her dressing gown.

Earlier in the day two Romanian women were frantically examining their phones down an alleyway as their kids played on the trampoline in the garden.

They were terrified and were bundling their belongings in the car and leaving for good.

A sizeable chunk of people born in Ballymena are angry. They do not like the talk from police and politicians that taking to the streets following an alleged sex attack on a teenage girl equates to them being “racist thugs”.

They see this as an act of venting their feelings. And they are hellbent on continuing this campaign of carnage across Northern Ireland to ensure they prove their point.

Day-to-day spending on the NHS will increase by £29bn a year, Rachel Reeves has announced, as she accepted that voters are yet to feel an improvement under Labour.

Delivering her spending review, the chancellor also declared an end to the use of asylum hotels this parliament by investing in cutting the backlog and returning more people with no right to be in the UK – which she said would save taxpayers £1bn a year.

Politics live: Reaction to spending review

Ms Reeves acknowledged that almost 12 months on from Labour’s landslide election victory, “too many people” are yet to feel their promise of national renewal.

She said the purpose of her spending review is “to change that”, with departmental budgets to grow by an average of 2.3% a year in real terms until 2028-29.

Key settlements include:

• NHS: The health service gets £29bn for day-to-day spending – a 3% rise for each year until the next general election;
• Housing: £39bn over the next 10 years to build affordable and social housing;
• Defence: Spending will rise from 2.3% of GDP to 2.6% by 2027, made up of an £11bn uplift on defence and £600m for security and intelligence agencies;
• Science and tech: Research and development funding will hit £22bn, with AI plans getting £2bn;
• Transport: £15bn for new rail, tram, and bus networks in the North and the West Midlands, a new rail line between Liverpool and Manchester, and a four-year settlement for TfL, plus the £3 bus fare cap extended to 2027;
• Nations: Scotland gets £52bn, Northern Ireland £20bn, and Wales £23bn, including for coal tips;
• Education: Free school meals extended to 500,000 children, while the extra £4.5bn per year will also go on fixing classrooms and rebuilding schools;
• Nuclear: A £30bn commitment to nuclear power, including £14.2bn to build Sizewell C plant in Suffolk and £2.5bn in small modular reactors;
• Prisons: 14,000 new prison places will be funded with a £7bn injection;
• Police: 13,000 more police officers will be paid for with £2bn.

Read more: The key announcements

Many of Wednesday’s announcements have been front-loaded by cash injections made since Labour took office, meaning that from 2025-26 the increase is a more modest 1.5% on average.

Over the course of the whole parliament, it equates to spending £190bn more on the day-to-day running of public services and £113bn more on capital investments than under the previous government’s spending plans, the chancellor said.

Ms Reeves drew a distinction between her review and the Tories’ austerity agenda in 2010, saying they cut spending by 2.9%.

She said austerity was a “destructive choice for the fabric of our society” and “different choices” would be made under Labour.

However, while overall departmental spending will increase day to day, some departments face a squeeze.

Home Office budget squeezed

This includes the Home Office, whose spend will reduce by 1.4% over the next three years, including daily spend and capital investments.

Daily spend covers the daily running costs of public services, while capital investment is spending by the state on the creation of fixed, long-term assets, such as roads and railways.

Combined, the Foreign Office and Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) also face reductions, as does the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and the Cabinet Office.

Paul Johnson, the director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, said 3% a year increases in NHS spending “does mean virtually nothing on average for current spending elsewhere”.

Ms Reeves said the cash boost for the NHS would fund more appointments, more doctors and more scanners.

She used this to draw dividing lines with Reform UK, saying they have called for an ‘”insurance-based system” whereas Labour created the NHS, protected the NHS and under this government would “renew the NHS”.

Read more:
The spending review: Five things you need to know

Speculation of tax rises

Ms Reeves said she was able to raise the money through decisions made in her autumn budget and spring statement, which saw taxes raised by £40bn and cuts made to the welfare budget.

However, the Tories said the review “isn’t worth the paper it’s written on” and further tax hikes will be needed.

Shadow chancellor Sir Mel Stride said that “this is the spend-now, tax-later review”, adding Ms Reeves “knows she will need to come back here in the autumn with yet more taxes and a cruel summer of speculation awaits”.

The Liberal Democrats said the “smoke and mirrors” spending review would leave a black hole in social care as local government budgets remain at breaking point.

“Putting more money into the NHS without fixing social care is like pouring water into a leaky bucket,” said the party’s Treasury spokesperson Daisy Cooper.