A common belief is people who are suffering with no prospect of recovery should have the right to choose a peaceful, dignified death on their own terms.

For those opposed, it's generally about holding to the notion that human life is sacred and should be protected always.

It's not unreasonable for each of us to see the subject in such black and white terms, and personal experiences can make the depth of feeling all the stronger.

Much more will be asked of our state members of parliament when they consider the latest attempt to introduce a voluntary assisted dying law in Tasmania.

Irrespective of their principled positions, impassioned support or otherwise, they will need to consider the detail of the legislation, and, as they say, the devil is in the detail.

Mersey MLC Mike Gaffney is responsible for what is perhaps the best chance yet of passing such legislation in this state.

Mr Gaffney's Bill is the result of extensive community consultation, and his status as an independent helps to separate the highly charged issue from party politics.

Appropriately, Premier Peter Gutwein asked government departments to consider "any implementation challenges" the draft legislation might present, and provided that advice to other MPs.

Supporters of Mr Gaffney's Bill say it has all necessary protections, but the departmental view is that it "potentially poses significant risks to patients".

Some MPs in the past have expressed in principle support for voluntary assisted dying only to vote against a proposed law because they did not believe it would adequately protect the vulnerable.

Arguably, and certainly MPs in favour have made this case before, all lawmakers should work to address any concerns they might have through the debate and, if needed, propose amendments.

It would be disingenuous for a member who claims to support voluntary assisted dying not to make such an effort before voting against the Bill.

What do you think? You can have your say by sending us a Letter to the Editor using the form below.