An extraordinary week stands ahead of us at Westminster.
A week in which MPs will be asked to make a decision that could have consequences for decades.
If the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill for England and Wales becomes law, it would give people, in certain circumstances, the right to die at a time of their choosing.
Scotland is also considering a change in the law on the issue too.
It is a colossal potential social change, compared by many to the Abortion Act of 1967, the abolition of capital punishment, the decriminalisation of homosexuality and the introduction of gay marriage.
Opinion polls suggest most people are broadly in favour of a change in the law and have been for years.
But it is impossible to be certain how the House of Commons will vote, not least because MPs are not being instructed on how to by their parties, as normally happens.
MPs have a free vote on Friday.
Speaking to those on both sides of the debate who are trying to keep a track on the numbers, there is an acknowledgement that sentiment has ebbed and flowed over the last few weeks, with opponents of change perhaps gaining some momentum after the Health Secretary Wes Streeting came out on their side of the argument.
It is, for so many MPs, an intensely personal moment.
Their usual political compass bearings, party loyalty and a broad sense of being on the left or the right, count for little here.
Instead, an experience in their own life, such as the loss of a relative or their religious conviction may weigh considerably.
There are three groups of MPs on this issue.
There are the unshiftably opposed, who won’t change their minds whatever arguments are made in the next few days.
There are the unshiftably in favour, who also won’t change their minds whatever is said this week.
And then there are those still making up their minds.
The running tallies of public declarations leave you hundreds of MPs short and so little the wiser about how things might shake out in the end.
Those in favour of change say that if all of those who have indicated privately that they are inclined to back it do back it, it will clear its first hurdle, what is known as second reading, on Friday.
Those against it telling me “it is on a knife edge”, think the more people are exposed to the arguments the more doubts creep in and believe the debate itself on Friday will sway some people to vote against.
There will be five hours of debate on Friday and I am told more than 100 MPs have said they would like to speak.
That would amount to three minutes each but the indication at this stage is there won’t be time limits imposed on speeches.
Some of those opposed to a change in the law say the lack of time for adequate debate and scrutiny is itself a problem.
Those in favour say the scope for much more detailed discussion would come after an approval in principle for a change in the law on Friday, in the far more detailed examination of the plans that would follow in the new year.
They are saying to some waverers that the pragmatic thing to do if you are open minded but uncertain is to allow the debate to continue in 2025, with the option still open to reject it at a later stage.
Those who are opposed point to the lack of an impact assessment – a consequence of this being a bill brought forward by a backbencher, Labour’s Kim Leadbeater, rather than the government – and a fear that if the idea isn’t rejected now a badly thought through idea could gather unstoppable momentum.
So, in the next few days, there will be intense discussion and debate at Westminster.
Talks and presentations are being held by both sides, with discussions, for instance, on opinion polling, palliative care, and international comparisons.
And then, on Friday, the debate and the vote.