Sir, Today the House of Lords will debate the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Bill. We are opposed to this Bill and to any measure that seeks to legalise assisted suicide or euthanasia. We believe that all human life is sacred and God-given with a value that is inherent, not conditional. We urge legislators to withhold support for this Bill so as to ensure that British law continues to safeguard the principle that the intention to kill, or assist in the killing, of an innocent human being is wrong .

Compassion for the terminally ill is incumbent on all of us, but in that respect we believe that the Bill is misguided. Such a Bill cannot guarantee that a right to die would not, for society’s most vulnerable, become a duty to die. Were such a law enacted, the elderly, lonely, sick or distressed would find themselves under pressure, real or imagined, to ask for an early death. Furthermore, there is no guarantee that economic pressures might not come to play a significant part in determining whether to treat or recommend assisted death.

Decisions about assisted suicide have acute implications for others — relatives, friends, colleagues, medical professionals and the wider community. As such, any change in the law would irrevocably change the delicate relationship of trust between patient and doctor and between citizen and society.

We particularly acknowledge the opposition to a change in the law from disability groups and from the majority in the medical profession, especially those committed to providing palliative care. In helping the terminally ill to face their fears, and by relieving their pain and suffering, palliative care workers are integral to securing the dignity of those nearing death. We believe, therefore, that properly funded and accessible palliative care services are essential for meeting the needs — material, emotional and spiritual — of those with terminal illnesses, and we urge the Government to recognise the need for greater funding for palliative care.

DR ROWAN WILLIAMS
CARDINAL CORMAC
MURPHY-O’CONNOR
SIR JONATHAN SACKS

Sir, With virtually every professional body representing doctors and nurses firmly opposed to the Joffe Bill, one wonders who is going to provide the barbiturates to assist patients who want to commit suicide and who is going to administer the lethal injection when such self-administration fails, as it surely will in a number of cases.

Perhaps those who cry that we treat sick dogs better than dying people should be campaigning for vets to do the assisting for humans, as they have much more experience of helping their patients to die than any doctor.

Failing that, perhaps the philosophers and lawyers so keen on legalising it should be authorised to do it. Why does it need a doctor at all? Healers should not be those who assist their patients’ self-destruction.

TREVOR STAMMERS
Epsom

()

Sir, Doctors go into medicine to make people better, not to kill them, so if society wants legal euthanasia, then let society establish the mechanism. No medical training is required to administer a lethal injection, and there would be no shortage of volunteers to take on this task. If a person decides that he wants to die, and a legal mechanism exists for him to do this, there is no requirement for a doctor to “hand them a lethal drug”.

Medical input should be making the diagnosis, advising on prognosis and offering the appropriate treatment — curative or palliative.

DR BOB BURY
Leeds

Sir, Although I actively support those who provide palliative care for the terminally ill, I also know that hospice beds are not available to the majority of sufferers. My mother consequently suffered pain and indignity during her final days of illness. The experience was horrifying, and I am determined to avoid it for myself, should I suffer a similar illness.

At the moment this could entail a journey to Switzerland, but I cannot believe that this should be our only option or that we must continue to deny pain-free assisted dying in our own country. Those who for religious reasons are opposed to this would not be forced to adopt such a course, but it cannot be right that a vociferous minority can force their opinions on the rest of us. Several surveys show that the overwhelming majority of the public believe the law should be changed to allow those who choose it to die with dignity.

KEN MINES
Uckfield, E Sussex

Sir, The Joffe Bill says that any terminally ill person who is suffering unbearably, and who repeatedly asks for assistance to die, must be offered the alternative of palliative care.

The evidence from Oregon, to which your correspondent, Dr Robert J. McKeever referred (May 11), is that in the vast majority of cases, the offer of palliative care will be accepted. In the eight years since the Death with Dignity Act was passed the percentage of people dying in hospices in Oregon has risen from 22 per cent to 51 per cent. Fewer than one tenth of 1 per cent have gone ahead with assisted dying.

However, Oregonians have the comfort of knowing that if their suffering remains unbearable they will be given the means of releasing themselves from it. That reassurance is what the Joffe Bill is all about.

PROFESSOR PAUL BADHAM
Patron of Dignity in Dying

Sir, It is possible that doctors voted against new legislation on euthanasia because they do not trust the present Government to enact usable legislation. It is wrong to conclude that they oppose euthanasia.

CHARLES BOCKETT-PUGH
Sandhurst, Berks

Explore Letters

• Feedback