I wouldn't dream of imposing my views on assisted dying on the Rev Tom Wright, so perhaps he'd have the kindness to keep his meddling attitudes off MY right to do whatever I want with MY life. Did you notice that Rev? MY LIFE, MY DECISIONS. Please BUTT OUT.

Bob Hamilton, Portsmouth, UK

Watch someone you love with an incurable degenerative condition, totally physically dependent, no control over bodily functions, in mental anguish and longing for death each day during months of palliative care, and you will pray that when your turn comes the law will allow assisted suicide.

O Rossiter, St Leonards on Sea, UK

Denying food is not a palliative care practice. As a hospice care volunteer I can tell you palliative care is about using medical techniques to ease suffering of a patient who has decided to no longer undergo curative treatments like radiation or chemo improving the quality of their final days.

Kara, Roanoke, VA, USA

From what I have seen of palliative care IT IS legalised killing. The cruel practice of denying food and liquid would kill even a fit person, let alone a terminally ill person, and hastened the death of several friends and relatives.. I know which I would prefer. Give me a lethal injection any time.

Judes, Redhill,

But Keith, using their own arguments against them, it could be said that if god doesn't stop them from committing suicide, god is actually approving of their actions.

Winston Jen, Sydney, Australia

Religious people don't say this, but they generally object to euthenasia on the grounds that only their god has the right to decide when and how you will die. They are not really convinced themselves by the smoke-screen arguments they put up, which is why theyose arguments are so logically weak; rather they are concerned with mere men abrogating god's right. The Christian god sems to have many reasons for making people (including newborn babies) suffer, and if 'he' wants people to die in the ways others here have described, then mortals are supposed to accept it. Christians have the same objection to suicide: it's god's prerogative to kill people when and how he wants, and the job of bishops to defend that with as ludicrously extreme arguments as they wish.

If someone holds a conviction that is grounded not in logic but in unquestioned dogma (and, sometimes, emotion ("babies")), you can't successfully disabuse them with logic. Not that the bishop would recognise logic if it bit him.

Keith, London, UK

What do you say to people who have been so stricken by illness or affected by an accident that their life is literally a constant suffering, for whom there is NO medical care that can help, and whose only wish is to end their misery? Their suffering not only affects them but extends to all their loved ones. Anyone who equates euthanasia with suicide or murder should read the case of Vincent Humbert as an example in point. In such cases, insisting on keeping a person alive out of moral self-righteousness is the real cruelty.

Francis, London,

Pat V, while I have nothing but sympathy for your plight, it was NOT a case of voluntary euthanasia, and as such, is a red herring in this debate.

Winston Jen, Sydney, Australia

Pat V, while I have nothing but sympathy for your situation, it was not a case of VOLUNTARY euthanasia, and as such, is a red herring in this discussion.

Winston Jen, Sydney, Australia

Life is precious. Once gone... that's forever. My elderly sister was murdered by her husband who then took his own life four years ago. The media immediately labeled it 'mercy killing'. It wasn't. He had been threatening to do it for 35 years..... no one actually thought he really would pull the trigger. 5-6 years before he killed her, I wrote to her doctor cautioning him that my brother-in-law was a loose cannon. The family that is left is still in emotional agony... especially her children & grandchildren. Euthanasia and mercy killings are touted by many as really wonderful. The mercy didn't materialize in my family... only heartbreak.

Pat V, Oregon, USA

The entire purpose of the law should be to protect us from each other, not to restrict an individual’s power over their own destiny. It should therefore allow those who wish to do so to achieve a good death. The religious would, of course, be free to do otherwise.

One of the arguments used by the religious against euthanasia is that a right to die will become a duty to die. Well, so what? I would like to feel that, should I reach a point where my continuing existence became mainly an emotional burden on my friends and family and a drain on the resources of a hard-pressed NHS, I would have the courage and capacity to end it. If the gospels are to be believed, Christ entered Jerusalem knowing that this would result in his death; to quote the bishop, “the normal word for that is, of course, suicide.“ The bible frequently tells us that Christ died for us. I find it extremely odd that Christians should object to others following the same altruistic course.

IanH, Glasgow, UK,

All life requires the consumption of life. Life is an oxymoron in that anything living requires death to continue. The types of life forms very but the need for death is clear.

All forms of life seek a higher quality of life and make daily decisions to eat or drink; do the things that will continue them; even dogs in pain or loss will choose to forgo the things that will continue them.

Death is not a punishment or something one can avoid, Death will come to anything that has life, and to live forever would require infinite death; the living are the root causes of death and even grass will kill for added ground.

Pain lowers the worth of life beyond life's ability to self justify. All forms of life will seek death when living bares only torture.

Even Samson longed for death when finding life was giving him only pain. He took his own life by the power of God.

Death is the greatest pain killer ever known, and there are no side effects. Death comes to us all.

Richard Bromley, Pahrump, Nevada

Someone here commented that this was all personal opinions; I agree. Those in favour of voluntary euthansia speak of their right, and the rights of all, to make a choice about their own death. Those against speak of their wish to impose their views onto others, regardless of situation or consequence. I would say i know which i'd choose, but that's dependant on whether i'm allowed to have autonomy, isn't it?

Ash, Brighton, UK

Please speak to the end of life with ALS (Lou Gehrig's disease). My son-in-law can only control his eyelids. On a ventilator and feeding tube. My daughter, and RN, has given up her nursing job (and the health insurance that went along with it) to care for him (and you need to consider all aspects of the care required). She has not left his side since January. He is considering setting a date when the ventilator would be adjusted so that he can die. Can he not make that decision? He wants to die at home, on his little ranch with his horses and his deer and his dogs and his birds and his family.

Diane Hanson, Basye, Virginia

To Tom in London, In the USA partial birth abortions are done on any pregnant woman who will pay; no danger to the mother's health is necessary (the danger is of course, is during and after the abortion). When a country will legalize the killing of their babies, infirmed, and elderly, it is a sick country, indeed.

karen, Dayton, oh/usa

My mother was was in a paliative care ward for four weeks, as she died from cancer. The cancer had wrapped around her spine, and she quickly lost the use of her body limb by limb, until she was unable to do little more than moan. Her constant nausea and pain was fought with a cocktail of drugs, which caused her to hallucinate, and made her paranoid.

The horribly understaffed ward was hardly a wonderful place, with senile strangers trying to steal her blankets while she was in them, or other patients screaming during the night.

And of course there was my mother's own delusions, brought on by the cancer, and the medications: Screaming at her children, her siblings, her own hallucinations, or simply out of pain, and frustration. And of course, the longer she survived, more drugs, more deterioration, and more suffering came with it.

I suppose I should thank the Bishop and the church for their legacy of ensuring that this kind of human suffering continues.

Justin, Toronto, ON, Canada

to Louis HR Muller, Centereach, New York:

First, partial birth abortion are only done in cases where the live of the mother is at stake or when the foetus already died inthe womb and the procedure is decided by the doctors (this is in no way a volontary "abortion" in the usual meaning of the term ). On the subject, nobody wants to eliminate the seriously ill. What the people wanting to legalise euthanasia want is to create a legal possibility for the dying person ITSELF to ask for a merciful death instead of a long drug-filled delirious agony. To avoid any possible kind of abuse of the system, for the query to be official, it would have to be made in front of 2 members of the family or friends CHOSEN by the terminally-ill patient and 2 doctors. This doesn't cover ALL the situations where euthanasia could become possibility (coma after accident) but at least it solves the problem for the more classical occurence such as someone slowly dying for a terminal illness.

Tom, London,

I seem to remember hearing or reading that at some point in time, the elderly, the crippled, the brain damaged were separated from the young, healthy and strong to be herded into gas chambers. Hmmmm

Kathy, Elburn, Il/

Under the Joffe initiative - When one is seriously ill, or injured by accident, or has fallen into dehydration or heat stroke, and is taken into hospital in a weakened state or unconscious, how shall one be confident that the nurse who comes into one's room to administer the prescribed intravenous drip - be it a curative antibiotic or hydrating saline, or a restoring blood transfusion - how shall one be confident that the nurse or doctor comes not to administer the lethal dose? How shall the elderly, the infirm, the sedated, be defended and protected from the nurse/doctor, who comes at 3:30 a.m., armed with the orders and the means, working under the pressure of time and duties amounting to overwork, and who meant to go to the room next door? How shall one be protected against one's rival in love or in business, having means to pay bonus to the nurse/dr.?
And thus the nature of the hospital changes, and hospital becomes never again a place of safety, of healing...

Edward Worley, Huntsville, Alabama, USA

I find it amazing that the same people who oppose the death penalty for murderers have no problem justifying abortion and elimination of the seriously ill. Partial birth abortions are particularly irrational. What type of woman carries a baby to term and then wants it killed by driving a medical instrument into its brain? And why, if we decide that a crime is so heinous that it deserves life imprisonment, shouldn't murder be punishable by death? Effectively, the state wants to make it easier to get rid of those who have committed no crime rather than those who have.

Louis HR Muller, Centereach, New York, USA

I see that Dr JG Hunt's answer to poor care in hospitals in London is to offer patients the option of having themselves killed instead of waiting for the negligent staff to do it by accident.

I must say, I think a preferable alternative would be to improve care. It is a radical option, and easier said than done. I agree with Dr Hunt that it would certainly be easier to off the difficult cases than offer adequate care, but I'm just not sure that that is what hospitals are for.

James Crocker, Cambridge, UK

Well its not surprising that a religious figure head makes an argument defending palitive care. Ultimately though his arguments are seated in his religous beliefs. Human suffering does not matter to him.. not one bit. I've often wondered myself how in the end it will go. I wouldn't want to be dopped up for 6 ++ months to ease the suffering and pain. I'd rather not be a cumbersome weight on the people around me that love me. I'd want an end that gave me a decent goodbye with some dignity. I wouldn't want the people around me to feel bad about me dieing for an extended time.

Further the state ought not to have that level of power over a persons life. I should have the right to end my life.. it is MY life. To say otherwise is pure idiocy essentially because the state and religion cannot ever absolutely have that much power over individuals lives.

All lives human or otherwise end in tragic moments. We ought not to force the torment of death by extending it beyond what is nessesary.

C.Bishop, Halifax,

Tom Wright, since you seem to dislike "helping people commit suicide" so much, are you willing to outlaw cars, trains tall buildings and rope? Because they make suicide easier too.

Winston Jen, Sydney, Australia

Interesting comments here- all looking at the question from just their personal perspective.
I assume the reports on how elderly patients, in care homes and in hospitals, are 'helped' to their death by neglect (no proper feeding) or by a doctor's decision (don't resuscitate) which was not discussed with the relatives beforehand are all right then?
So it is ok for your granny to die from pneumonia, because of official neglect, even though she could have survived?
This is the slippery slope the Bishop is addressing.
I wonder if the same people who are so adamantly aksing for their 'right' to commit suicide (assisted or not) would be as keen for this if they were severly physically disabled after an accident, but mentally as competent as always? Because keeping them alive would be so expensive ...
Would Stephen Hawkings still be alive if there were such law?
It is a slippery slope, and one does not have to be a Bishop or a Christian to recognise this.

Vivian Evans, Cardiff,

If Bishop Tom has access to "splendid hospices in the North East", he should thank his god and pray that the miracle lasts.

In London, patients may survive a spell in hospital: if they are lucky. In recent years I have watched several [and heard of others] who have been far from lucky, suffering protracted neglect and indignity, and in some cases dying as a direct result of the absolutely abysmal standard of care received.

Rather than opposing the right of those who wish a measure of control over their dying, withholding their heavenly boarding card to eternal peace and tranquillity, the bishop could make himself of some earthly use by helping to fight for an acceptable standard of care for patients who hunger and thirst in hospital, lying for hours in their own excreta, with call bell out of reach, or unanswered if they press it. St. Matthew had no beatitude for them.

Dr. J. G. Hunt, London,

I think one of the most valuable lessons anyone can learn is that we are all mortal and that there comes a time when it is time to go. The modern obsession with health and fitness has morphed into some sort of belief that death is a failure and that there is always someone to blame. If people could just get their heads round the basic truth that death is inevitable, then perhaps it would not seem so outlandish that a sentient and reasonable human being might wish to choose the manner of that death. It's not a question of people being 'surplus' (surplus to what, exactly?) It's a question of accepting that to everything there is a season and that life, per se, is not always something to be hung onto no matter what that hanging on entails. I would have thought a churchman in particular would have appreciated that, since he presumably believes that earthly life is only a preparation for life everlasting.

Jenny Latimer, Dundee,

This is a complex issue, but the Bishop's words on it are a disgrace, and do no credit to the church. Describing supporters of some form of assisted dying as wanting to "kill surplus old people" is deeply insulting. In the same vien, I could say the church is on a mission to "control people's lives by brainwashing them with guilt". But much as I disagree with the religious, I do at least accept the sincerity of thier beliefs. If only the reverse were true.

Both my parents died in utter misery, after rich enjoyable lives. I loved them both and never wanted to "kill" them or thought them "surplus". The care they had was pretty dire - top notch hospices are very thin on the ground. I don't know if they would have chosen to end thier lives if the choice had been available (my mother did refuse life extending treatment) - but it would have been something I could have understood.

Nick, France,

All I can say is I'm glad I live in Belgium, so if necessary, I can make a decision. Do I want to spend weeks strung out on morphine which can never be enough, causing no end of pain to my family who will have to see me begging to die, day-by-day, in immeasurable pain, with no dignity? Or do I speak to my doctor who can just let me go, as peacefully as this wretched disease will allow me?
In a deeply Catholic country like this one, they did not allow their clergy to dictate their laws. For that, I will be grateful until the end of my days, where it be assisted or otherwise.

Anna, Brussels,

It's not either/or, it's both/and. And it's not killing, it's assisted dying. Some people, whether Bishop Wright knows it or not, suffer horribly as they die. If he does not know this, then he should become informed. There is no reason to fear the so-called 'murky moral world' of the slippery slope. Other jurisdictions are able to make these distinctions, so can Britain, Australia, the United States or Canada. Oregon, in the US, already does this, and Lord Joffe's bill provided ways of making necessary distinctions too -- inadequate ways, in my view, becuase they limit access to assistance in dying too strictly. But choice and autonomy is the criterion, in the end, and it is wrong of bishops or any other persons representing special interest groups, to deny others the right to make decisions for themselves. Bishop Wright's claim in his Easter sermon was, as David Aaronovitch said, an outrageous exaggeration which amounts to a falshood.

Eric MacDonald, Windsor, Nova Scotia, Canada

Legalized killing? OK. How about war in general or religious wars in particular? Or is that slaughter, as opposed to just killing? Whatever happened to cognitive dissonance? Shouldn't there be more of that raised into awareness?

Larry, Dexter, MO

I think that if suicidal people went before a Euthinasia panel where they could explain thier reasons for wanting to die, alot of people could get the support or advice required to possibly want to carry on living and it may reduce the suicide rate. If the support / advice didn't make a difference to thier feelings of wanting to die once it was taken on board, then they should have the right to not exist.

Lolly Vox, Southampton,

Clearly the writer has never experienced the pain that people suffer in these situations, well beyond anything morphine can control. I concur whole-heartedly with the commenter speaking about enforced religious beliefs; if you believe it immoral then okay, you can suffer through it but personally I believe it to be entirely ethical to relieve someone of their suffering & would like that option to be open to me in that situation.

Abigail, Sydney, Australia

Time for plain speaking, I think.
If bishops want to dictate to religious people how and when they should be allowed to die - OK.
But I happen to be a non-religious person - an atheist.
So how and when I should be allowed to die is none of the bishop's business.
I refuse to be prevented from dying by a lot a religious bigots "playing god".

alan, germany,

Some people accept it and indeed, embrace it. So who the hell are you to tell them they are wrong?

Jeremy Poynton, Frome, Somerset

Another reglious idealogue, governed by his superstitious mind.

Quality of life is what it's all about, and controlled chice euthanasia is the only humane way forward for any civil society.

F.Summers, NY,

"I said “surplus” people. It might well be said that they are not “surplus”, but simply “suffering”."

Indeed, it might be so said. But you *didn't say that - you said 'surplus'. Now, having moved the goalposts, can we put them back where they were, and having done so, would you care to have a go at answering the question?

John Flemming, Scunthorpe, UK

One of the greatest lies told is that "the pain can be managed". It is told by wicked people who would rather see the dying spend their last days in agony, than break their holy men’s "moral" code.

Save us from these self appointed watchmen.

In regard to the good bishops comments on the secular lobby , please supply some evidence to back up your claims(I know the word "evidence" is distasteful to the religious, but PLEASE try)

Edward Jackson, Blackpool, Lancs,

Apparently it is legal to shorten one's own life by several decades through an unhealthy diet and a lazy lifestyle, but it is NOT legal to shorten one's own life by a few weeks or months with a lethal injection, even when there is no chance of recovery. What a strange world we live in.

Winston Jen, Sydney, Australia

A terrible dilemma. I accompanied a very old friend with terminal cancer to Switzerland where he was assisted in his suicide. I suffered badly for long after the event and having seen another friend die in a hospice, feel that palliative care would have been a much better option. But he was a proud man determined to be in control of his own destiny to the end. I would never consider "helping" again, and regret it to this day. Maybe that is selfishness on my part, I don't know. This is a question that will never be resolved.

keith, London,

What moral right does the Bishop of Durham have to prevent me from asking my closest friends to assist my death upon my conditions being met?

As Cicero remarked about death after it you will either feel better or feel nothing.

John

John Batten, London, UK

my friend's grandfather was dead in cancer, and i have looked at how painful he was suffering before passed away,so , i think if the patient or the family agree to lunch euthanasia. doctor should do it.

cty, zhejiang, china

"Reports from the Netherlands suggest that moves are being made to extend the euthanasia protocol to cover new-born children."

Slippery-slope argument!! It's a classic - can be used for anything... "if we do this, babies will die!" Surely a bishop can do better than this.

James, Adelaide, Aus

Oh dear. I hope I can visit Phillip Nitschke's workshops before I am unable to take my death into my own hands.

Margaret Tighe, Melbourne, Australia

There is little or no dignity in such a palliative-care death - the mind fogged into uselessness by sustained morphine-dosage, the bowels and bladder uncontrolled. To inflict such a thing upon someone against their stated preference is an act of moral cowardice.

Liam, Stoke, UK

I have treated people in agony who the best palliative care doesn't sufficiently help. They have lost their dignity, are often in constant pain. Often people WANT to die - it is their choice.

Yet you choose to decide on how they spend the last of their days!

I dislike how one person can enforce their morals on others and blithely speak of Palliative care as a viable option for all.

Richard, London, England