Assisted dying is not assisted suicide, and the arguments against it are bogus
In considering the question of assisted dying it is important not to fall into the same trap as Anthony Horan (Scotsman, 24 July) by referring to assisted dying as assisted suicide. Assisted dying (AD) is about people who are dying and terminally ill. It’s about them having the legal freedom of how, where and when they want to end their lives. Many opinion polls have consistently shown a strong majority in favour of it.
The traditional counterargument to AD is religious – God banned it. This is a matter of belief, and people holding such beliefs have no right to impose them on those who don’t share them.
A second counter-argument concerns people who might be depressed or mentally ill, and not responsible for themselves. This problem is easily dealt with by suitable psychiatric safeguards. There’s no evidence of it being a problem in countries where AD is available. Furthermore, applying for AD from the Swiss Dignitas clinic is a lengthy and expensive business, requiring detailed medical and psychiatric reports – many requests are rejected.
A third counter-argument is the slippery slope argument that allowing AD will lead to euthanasia. Proponents of slippery slope fail to explain how AD will result in the frail, vulnerable and disabled being bullied into asking doctors to kill them, even though it is not what they want. Is this really a plausible scenario?
A fourth counter-argument is that the legalisation of AD will be used as an excuse to provide less hospice care. Again, this has not been borne out in countries where AD is available.
A fifth, and widely voiced counter-argument, against AD is the avaricious relatives argument who, it is claimed, will bully their elderly, vulnerable parents into requesting a suicide pill so that they can inherit the family wealth.
Apart from revealing a remarkably shoddy opinion of our fellow human beings, it is contrary to what doctors have actually observed. Besides, the simplest of safeguards, in the form of careful interviews by independent specialists, over a suitable period, would easily prevent this happening.
A sixth, and final, counterargument to AD is that its very availability will scare vulnerable, dying patients and so the right of people to opt for it should be removed. This strange argument seems to be saying that legalising AD will make dying patients look on hospitals and hospices as little different from death camps and no longer places of kindness and care.
We must remember that assisted dying is voluntary and applies only to people with mental capacity.
DOUG CLARK Muir Wood Grove, Currie, Midlothian
Poll after poll on assisted dying, no matter which research organisation runs it, shows the same result: a massive majority in favour of changing the law. The Catholic Church and other religious opponents know they are never going to win a referendum on physician-assisted death no matter how much fear, uncertainty and doubt they foster.
The arguments they use are invariably secular (such as the effect assisted dying might have on the vulnerable). There’s rarely a reference to religion or the idea that life is a divine gift and humans should not interfere. Even though the basis of their creed is that God owns your life, not you, they know the general public no longer buys that line.
Anthony Horan trots out the usual litany of slippery slopes and family pressure even though these are addressed by nations offering a merciful release to those dying in extremis. Perhaps the Church will find the courage to explicitly state “We don’t want you to have this option whether or not you’re a believer” – but don’t hold your breath.
REV DR JOHN CAMERON
Howard Place, st Andrews