To claim that assisted dying is not assisted suicide is merely playing with words

I write in response to the letters of Doug Clark and Rev Dr John Cameron on assisted dying (26 July).

They contain so many misleading statements that I can deal with only a few in the space available.

To say that assisted dying is not assisted suicide is merely playing with words. If someone requests help to end their life, a doctor prescribes a lethal dose and the person takes it and dies, this is suicide.

There is an element of euthanasia also, in that a medical practitioner prescribes, a pharmacist issues and an attendant, possibly a nurse, administers the lethal dose with the intention that the person will die.

The appeal to opinion polls showing consistent public support for assisted suicide may be countered by pointing out that responses to such polls tend to be reflex rather than considered. The questions provide incomplete information and do not cover all the complexities involved in changing the law. Both the Holyrood and Westminster Parliaments have considered these questions exhaustively after taking extensive evidence and have consistently rejected proposals to change the law.

In response to Mr Clark’s comment about religious arguments against assisted suicide and euthanasia, it should be pointed out that many others with no religious axe to grind are also opposed to a change in the law, such as doctors’ organisations and disability organisations.

As to Dr Cameron’s claim that churches should stick to “religious” arguments, he ignores the Christian doctrine that all truth is God’s truth and Christians may legitimately use what he calls “secular” arguments.

As usual with proponents of assisted suicide, both letters base their main argument on what Dr Cameron calls “offering a merciful release to those dying in extremis”.

This scenario is not borne out by the 2017 report of the functioning of the Death with Dignity Act in Oregon: only 21 per cent of patients cited concerns about pain relief as a reason for requesting assisted suicide, while 88 per cent cited loss of autonomy and loss of ability to engage in normal enjoyable activities and 67 per cent cited loss of dignity. This shows that existential concerns, rather than fear of uncontrollable pain, are major reasons for wanting to legalise assisted suicide.

The inevitable dismissive reference to“the slippery slope” may be countered by showing the incremental extension of the application of assisted suicide and euthanasia legislation to conditions that are not terminal, as in Oregon, and, in the Netherlands and Belgium, to categories of patients not envisaged in the legislation.

Mr Clark’s other arguments have all been considered by the various Parliamentary Committees which scrutinised the various Bills brought forward and were not found to be persuasive.

Better and more widely available palliative and end of life care is what is required, not the deliberate ending of human lives.

(REV DR) DONALD M

MACDONALD

Blackford Avenue, Edinburgh