That is the question, loosely, that MPs are now set to grapple with for many months. As will peers. Friday’s historic vote chimed with public opinion, which is strongly in favour of letting terminally ill people choose death over prolonged suffering. But, as our Political Correspondent Peter Spencer reports, the complexities that parliamentary procedure can throw up could kill the bill at any time.
Westminster’s super-nerds can dig out yellowing parchments from as far back as the time that Henry the Eighth decided on, ahem, assisted dying for two of his wives.
And one serving MP, viewed even by his own Tory colleagues as a dinosaur, has form on wrecking legislation introduced in the way this was.
Sir Christopher Chope so disapproves of bills brought in by individual MPs, as opposed to governments, that he put a stop, to cite an egregious example, to a law protecting girls from genital mutilation.
Still, with a majority in favour of fifty-five, the starting gun has been fired. And its backers will go all out to try and see it through to the statute book.
If so, it’ll be up there with the legalising of abortion and gay marriage, or the end of hanging. And it knocks political hiccups, even ones as big as cabinet resignations, into a cocked hat.
A bit of journalistic digging served to remind the world that Louise Haigh got in a spot of bother with the law ten years ago over a mobile phone that she reported stolen but in the event hadn’t been.
Though the beak decided it was pretty trivial, and she had come clean with Sir Keir Starmer when he first promoted her, when the story came out she resigned as Transport Secretary.
Or was she pushed? Either way, the story fizzled out as quickly as it burst into flames. If nothing else, the incident suggests Starmer’s getting the hang at last of news management.
But, back to the real story.
Friday’s debate was like few others, in that MPs forwent the all too common practice of making silly point-scoring speeches just to put the other side on the back foot.
In its place came sincere, often deeply personal and at times heartrending speeches in support of or opposition to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, to give it its full title.
The Labour MP behind it, Kim Leadbeater, insists that the safeguards, including two doctors and the High Court giving the person’s request their backing, are the most robust in the world.
However, its opponents claim just as vehemently that it’s a: ‘Slippery slope towards death on demand.’
That, they say, can arise from people either feeling guilty about being a burden on their loved ones, or indeed being coerced into suicide by not very loveable so-called loved ones.
But the testimony from the family of Elaine Hudson, former nurse and victim of motor neurone disease, who died on Monday, puts such arguments into graphic perspective.
Towards the end she was, as they put it, ‘screaming out in pain’ in her hospice. And her jaw locked, leaving her, again their words, ‘choking on saliva’.
So she opted for apparently the only legal way to end her suffering. Refusing food and drink, she took her own life by starvation.
Her brother, Bruce Thew, said bitterly: ‘It is a brutal way to die, all happening in a liberal, caring human society that we are really lucky to be in.
‘Our politicians are getting this one tragically wrong, trying to protect the one person that maybe is coerced … at the expense of the ninety nine that need to be able to choose.’
A view backed by former Tory Prime Minister Lord Cameron, who’s changed his mind on the subject since it last came up in the commons nine years ago. He said:
‘When patients enter a final and acute period of agony, then surely, if they can prevent it and – crucially – want to prevent it, we should let them make that choice.’
Of course the picture’s skewed by spiritual considerations.
While a giant poll for the More in Common think tank last week showed that almost two-thirds of us are in favour of assisted dying, a majority in the religious segment of society are not.
Which brings us back to the to-be-or-not-to-be Prince of Denmark. And a reminder that fellow playwright Ben Johnson had a point in describing Shakespeare as: ‘Not of an age, but for all time.’
In one of many thoroughly miserable soliloquies, he had Hamlet putting it perfectly.
‘O that this too too solid flesh would melt, thaw and resolve itself into a dew. Or that the Everlasting had not fixed his canon ’gainst self-slaughter!’
That’s basically it. Though it’s also a touchy subject.
When Starmer ally Lord Falconer claimed that Justice Secretary Shabana Mahmood’s antagonism was driven by religion a cabinet minister accused him of mounting a ‘drive-by shooting’.
And that’s just for starters. Now that the bill’s got over its crucial first hurdle, it will dominate headlines again and again. Which begs a question over the Prime Minister’s judgement.
It’s said that because he’s in favour of assisted dying he gave Kim Leadbeater the nod when she found she could give the idea a go.
But does he really want his message about how the Labour government is fixing the nation’s foundations and making everyone better off obscured by endless talk on this subject?
Alternatively, given that he’s said that pain must come before gain – the budget proves his point perfectly – it’s maybe better if folk talk of other things while waiting for the sunny uplands.
Arguably rather a cynical attitude that, and, in fairness, probably didn’t loom large in his calculations. But it might have crossed the minds of his communications team.
Face it, after securing his landslide victory it seems only minutes ago his popularity, and that of his government, has plummeted.
So he is in a tight spot, though he won’t be the first, or the last, to find himself awkwardly encased.
It’s a moot point whether a black cat crossing your path is a sign of good or bad luck, but poor John from Clevedon in Somerset didn’t get the chance to get in anyone’s way last weekend.
That’s because the moggie took the unwise decision to try a shortcut through a drainpipe connected to a garage.
In spite of the name, John is female. But she found she couldn’t exercise her prerogative of changing her mind when, after wriggling her head through, her body stayed stuck.
Happily, the fire brigade did the honours. It was a bit tricky as the only way they could manage it was to break off the section that imprisoned her and get the local vet to gently prise off the last bit.
The owner thanked the firemen for their sterling work after John’s regrettable attempt at a ‘rise to fame’.
And someone else looked at the cat’s expression and joked: ‘I’m not convinced by that face that she won’t do it again.’
Indeed, those feline features were a picture of defiance and outrage. But whether she really would give it another go, that’s another matter.
Watch Peter’s report at peterspencer.org
Peter Spencer has 40 years experience as a Political Correspondent in Westminster, working with London Broadcasting and Sky News. For more of his fascinating musings on the turbulent political landscape, follow him on Facebook & Twitter.