It would be a debate, he declared, of patience and grace, of inclusion, of diverse views but common conduct.

"I'm confident each and every member of parliament will search their conscience, search their personal values, search their personal experiences to make a decision that they believe is the right decision for the future," he subsequently told a media conference.

A noble sentiment. Let's hope the premier is right.

For MPs will not only be required to search their consciences, they will be forced weigh up the politics. And this is where things could get messy.

Opposition Leader Matthew Guy has already dismissed the looming debate about legalised euthanasia as a "political distraction", claiming it will occupy a lot of time in 2017 "for an outcome that will not help the day-to-day lives of every Victorian".

I think this is wrong. The question of how we die, and under what circumstances, does affect all of us. Most people do have a view about how much control we should have over own deaths.

If the legislation is passed in the second half of next year, it may not change many votes across Victoria.

But in the state's most marginal seats, campaigners need only to convince a small number of voters of their cause to make the sitting MPs nervous. This is why political parties have a tendency to court minorities such as the religious right, voters who are wedded to issues.

A conscience vote means every MP will be lobbied by both sides of the debate.

According to one senior ALP strategist, assisted dying could indeed be a hot button issue in a seats with "religious pockets" such as Pascoe Vale, held by socially conservative Labor MP Lizzie Blandthorn, and Forest Hill, held by conservative Liberal Neil Angus.

The veteran pro-life campaigner Margaret Tighe calls it "punishment politics". The idea is to inflict maximum electoral pain by targeting individual MPs in key marginal seats.

The issue of assisted dying could also potentially prove divisive in regional Victoria, particularly in areas where palliative care is often poor or non-existent.

This problem will to some extent be neutralised, with the government set to ramp up efforts to improve palliative care. This, however, will take time.

On probabilities, the bill should pass the lower house. But the decisive action is likely to be in the upper house, where conservative forces will play a more decisive role.

Andrews is doing everything he can to ensure a smooth debate to minimise the political risks, mainly by taking precautions to get the bill right the first time. Even so, a smooth debate is probably too much to hope for.