Assisted dying laws

SIR – John Keown, a professor of Christian ethics (Letters, May 2), quotes a discussion I had on the meanings that various people take from the term “assisted dying”. When it comes to public-policy discussions, however, the only confusion seems to arise from those who deliberately seek to obfuscate the debate.

The Health and Social Care Select Committee has recently published an authoritative and robust report on assisted dying, in which it clearly defines the term. Westminster, Holyrood, the Crown Dependencies and other places will all define the term in their own legislation, in their own way. This is right, as no legislature should feel bound by another’s definition, much less by the exact terms of the legislation.

The underlying principles, however, are the same: that dying people are given the opportunity and means to control the ends of their lives, with safeguards and oversight. That legislators across the UK and nearby jurisdictions are grasping this nettle should give us encouragement; that legislators in Australia, New Zealand and the United States have crafted their own laws must give us reassurance.

It is not beyond the wit of our own Parliament to listen to the public, agree on a definition and pass legislation that gives dying people a real choice at the end of life.

Lord Falconer of Thoroton (Lab)

London SW1

SIR – Professor John Keown writes: “Such woolly phrases [as assisted dying] can only confuse public understanding and should have no place in public policy debate.”

Having watched both of my parents die prolonged, painful, undignified deaths, I find this statement quite insulting. Millions have gone through the same experience as my family and thus have a very clear understanding of what the phrase means and what is involved. David Goodwin Chester