Euthanasia rebuff

From his contribution to the assisted dying debate (24 October), David Colquhoun clearly demonstrates he ’rings the bell without really knowing where the clapper hangs’.

Unfortunately, he is not alone in getting stuck with this much abused parallel.

But insists on putting his biased foolish reasoning in writing, thinking he really is contributing to the debate.

The German euthanasia programme concerned decisions by others (as he correctly said, guardians and parents), while the Dutch situation only concerns decisions by the requesting individual.

The number of ‘‘life terminations without request’ he cites are from long ago.

Recently only 0.1-0.2% of all deaths out of 150,000 have been recorded, and many of these are doubtful as they often resemble palliative sedation in terminal care, as happens in hospices.

The case-stories he uses to support his opinion are also misleading.

The woman ‘‘held down’’ concerned a very complex case of dementia with an advance directive, in which the woman herself had previously requested euthanasia if and when her dementia worsened.

The citation of the other case is so much simplified that any serious reaction is impossible.

This is simply based on uncorroborated ‘‘hear-say evidence’’. Jack Havill, Hamilton