Gratuitous adjective like "ugly" don't help anything.
"Assisted dying" IS a very difficult subject, as many countries and societies find, but you seem to want to keep to suit your own beliefs, the choice from people who genuinely want Nature to be given a helping hand.
In extremis, palliative care might dull physical pain but merely prolong the agony in other ways, even if you look above the cost to the taxpayer or family (and profit to some care home quite possibly owned by some American private-equity spiv).
"No doubt the vultures..."? A blanket statement without evidence.
"again". Were there any previously? Who? Where? (Apart from care-home "investors" perhaps, though they'd make money money from prolonging deaths, not hastening them.)
"Medical staff making ethical decisions"... Don't they already do that? Even the Hippocratic Oath recognises that. It is based on saving lives as much as possible, but principally alleviating suffering. NO: the patient is the one who decides.
Otherwise doctors, followed by judges but certainly not solicitors or barristers are far more qualified than you, me or anyone else to make ethical decisions based on medical conditions.
Also, unless perhaps you are rich enough to buy private care, medical staff in the UK do not profit from such decisions. Though if they did, the longer they manage to prolong a barely-viable life the more profit they would make.
Money should have no part in such decisions anyway. (Hence keeping solicitors and barristers well out of the way!)
