Clayton's compromises and the assisted dying debate

Richard Huxtable has recently argued that while assisted dying has been both repeatedly condemned and commended, a compromise resolution is possible. Following critique of other purported solutions, he argues for a new legal offence of "compassionate killing" as a plausible compromise between supporters and opponents of legalised assisted dying, because it offers something of significance to both sides. However, it turns out that "compassionate killing" would leave both sides with insufficient net benefit for the proposal to qualify as a compromise between them. By analogy with another apparently intractable bioethical debate, concerning destructive embryo research, this column rejects Huxtable's solution as another "Clayton's compromise". True compromise is not possible in bioethical debates involving divisions over deeply held values and world views. Resolving such debates inevitably involves the substitution of one dominant world view with another.