AFTER suffering a stroke on a business trip Tony Nicklinson, a former rugby player and skydiver, developed locked-in syndrome, an incurable condition that leaves a patient aware but unable to move or talk. Nicklinson learned to communicate by blinking his eyes and thus was able to describe his terrible suffering. Imprisoned in his corporeal cell with no chance of escape, he wanted to die. But since Britain does not permit assisted suicide, his “living nightmare” continued.

Death is a fearful thing, but it is the pain of life that leaves many ill people in despair. Like Nicklinson, some people would like to die peacefully, at a time of their choosing and with the assistance of a doctor. Their desire for a humane end should not offend liberal societies, which rest on the principle of self-determination, so long as one’s actions do not harm others. This newspaper supports making assisted suicide legal. So, according to polls, do more than two-thirds of Americans and western Europeans.

You might then wonder why more governments do not guarantee the right to an easeful death. Only a handful of countries allow certain individuals to take their own lives with a doctor’s help. A few others are passing laws, or—contemplating them (see article), as Britain’s is. A bill in its House of Lords has a few more restrictions than The Economist would want. But that is no reason to oppose it. Liberal or not, politicians should move slowly when it comes to complex moral issues, which, whatever your views, this certainly is.

Go gentle

The arguments against assisted suicide are strongly held. Many people object on moral or religious grounds, while some doctors say that it conflicts with their oath to “do no harm”. Opponents add that vulnerable people may feel pressure to spare their carers the burden—or, worse, may be bullied into choosing suicide. And there is a broader argument that allowing assisted suicide in some cases will create a slippery slope, with ever more people being allowed (or forced) to take their own lives, even for trivial reasons.

But the arguments in favour are more compelling. In a pluralistic society, the views of one religion should not be imposed on everybody. Those with a genuine moral objection to assisted suicide need not participate. What a doctor sees as harm a patient may see as relief; and anyway it is no longer standard for medical students to take the Hippocratic oath. The hardest argument concerns vulnerable people: they may indeed feel pressure, but that is simply a reason to set up a robust system of counselling and psychiatric assessment, requiring the agreement of several doctors that a patient is in their right mind and proceeding voluntarily.

It is also true that as some countries relax their restrictions on assisted suicide, the practice will become more common and there will probably be pressure for other restrictions to be removed. But there is nothing unusual in this. Moral absolutes are rare. When faced with dilemmas societies draw boundaries and carve out exceptions. In even the seemingly clearest of cases, such as the prohibition on killing, exceptions are made for things like war and self-defence. Assisted suicide is no different and each society’s boundaries will no doubt differ and evolve, as they already have. The Netherlands and Belgium legalised assisted suicide in 2001 and 2002, but only the latter has approved the practice for terminally ill children.

There is much to be said for the breadth of the Swiss model, which allows assisted suicide in most cases. But on such an emotive and contentious issue politicians should reflect society, not lead it. Taboos are created by the people of a country; when they lift them, change goes more smoothly. Most in the West now seem ready to end the one on assisted suicide for the terminally ill. They should be allowed to work out how much further they want to go. Gradualism, therefore, is warranted.

The bill in the House of Lords would make assisted suicide legal in Britain for the first time, but require an individual wanting to die to be assessed by two doctors and be judged to have less than six months to live. He then would have to administer the lethal drugs himself. The current proposal would not have helped Nicklinson, whose death was not imminent. (After being denied the right to die by Britain’s high court in 2012, he refused food and finally succumbed to pneumonia.) But it would still give several thousand Britons a year the chance to escape the sort of pain that Nicklinson suffered from, and would gradually increase public support for further liberalisation. We hope that it passes.