AS our MSPs prepare to debate and vote on the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill, I would urge them to take a stand for life and reject this unnecessary, unethical, uncontrollable and deeply flawed Bill.
Practically speaking, allowing suicide - and permitting others to assist in it - not only makes the act more acceptable, it allows it to become systematised. When we come to see assisted suicide as just another medical treatment, it will take on the legitimacy of any other medical treatment. Like other legitimate medical treatments, in certain circumstances it will be looked upon not as an option but an expectation - normal practice. As it becomes a normal practice, there will be pressure on vulnerable patients to choose it; just to get out of the way and stop being a burden. Proponents of assisted suicide who swear that it will always be a purely voluntary option fail to account for the realities of human nature. The mere availability of assisted suicide is a coercive force. It will never be limited to those who choose it voluntarily.
The law safeguards the vulnerable and upholds life - while showing compassion to those who break the law. Allowing assisted suicide would destroy the law's careful balance and it would no longer defend the intrinsic value and dignity of every human life. Do we really want to create a law that implies some lives are worth less than others?
The drive to change the law comes from a small group of determined individuals who view life as something that can and should be under our absolute control. This is hardly surprising given the state of Western society. We live in a very utilitarian culture, in which things - and people - are valued according to how useful they are. When we try to imagine not being able to do the things we enjoy now - or even perform basic functions - we tend to think, "I wouldn't like to live like that" and so assisted suicide can seem a legitimate option.
It is very common for people who cavalierly swore in their impregnable youth that they would rather die than lose their mobility or faculties to realise, when it actually happens to them, that they fiercely want to live. Humans have a remarkable ability to adapt to changing circumstances, and it is dangerous to base public policy, which affects everyone, on how we feel in the prime of our health, and how we think we will feel when we lose certain capabilities. Assisted suicide proponents are sincere in their beliefs; but what matters here is what is good for society and the law must uphold life as well as protecting the vulnerable.
I hold the radical view that killing humans is wrong. I hope our MSPs take the same view and decide to stand on the right side of truth. Let's kill the Bill, not the people.
Martin Conroy,
Daisy Cottage, Oldhamstocks, East Lothian.
YOUR editorial ("Debate on assisted suicide will persist" , The Herald, May 25) predicts the defeat of the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill when it faces its Stage 1 Debate in Parliament today (May 27). However it appears to do so under a mistaken understanding of the Parliament's legislative process.
The editorial appears sympathetic to the principles of the Bill, which are supported by a majority of the Scottish population. However it goes on to say: "The practice of the law is another matter and it is doubt over this that makes it likely the Assisted Suicide Bill will and should fail."
However it is the principles of the legislation which are subject to debate at Stage 1. It is after detailed scrutiny and amendment at the Committee Stage (stage 2), when there is a final Stage 3 debate before the whole Parliament that a decision is taken whether the detailed provisions of the Bill are to be passed or rejected. I think that the Bill does require improvement and clarification at Stage 2, but I do support its basic principles.
I urge MSPs to vote in favour of the general principles so that this important debate can continue; they will still have the opportunity to reject the Bill at Stage 3 if they are not satisfied that a satisfactory solution has been reached.
Dr J A T Dyer,
Flat 6 29C Polwarth Terrace, Edinburgh.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article