Assisted dying
It was astonishing that Jim Duffy made out his case for assisted dying to be legalised and mentioned the role of doctors and specialists only once (Perspective, 4 May).
Even then, it was in the context of a plea for a humanitarian understanding of the plight of those in pain who seem to have exhausted all channels for recovery.
But he should realise that the role of the medical profession is crucial if the public is to be convinced that a new law would work in a civilised manner. The reason why the case for change has failed a number of times in the Scottish Parliament is a simple one: not enough members were convinced that the potential for abuse of a law could be overcome.
How could it be established that a person assisting an individual to die – even by simply accompanying then to hospital – is acting from the best of motives? How could we be sure that once a precedent was set relatives and friends would not press for the early demise of loved ones? How could we be sure that individuals would not call for their own early death simply because he or she was temporarily depressed by a situation?
These are matters which
need professional judgment from doctors and specialists.
So far they have been reluctant to become involved in making a law work and that is understandable. The potential for endless litigation and the destruction of professional reputations is enormous. This simply reinforces the case for a tighter statute, not that the case for legislation should be abandoned altogether.
At the moment an overworked profession may not be looking for trouble. But in the longer run it will be essential to define their role. In circumstances where palliative care is no longer viable, or where individuals genuinely feel they can no longer rely on the benevolence of those close to them, their right to need their own life must be respected.
For this to work civilly it must be overseen by a medical profession that feels secure and clear on how the law is meant to work.
BOB TAYLOR
Shiel Court, Glenrothes