THE fact that a small number of doctors have declared their support for Margo MacDonald's Assisted Suicide Bill is no surprise ("Doctors reveal backing for assisted suicide legislation", The Herald, March 11).

Public opinion is not conclusively in favour as we are so often told. Whilst casual opinion appears to be supportive, considered opinion is firmly against.

In responses to Margo MacDonald's own consultations, 87% and 64% respectively were opposed. Doctors, as part of the public, will reflect the spread of opinion, with some being in favour as your report describes. It is nevertheless the case that the overwhelming majority remain resolutely opposed, including the British Medical Association, the Association for Palliative Medicine, the British Geriatric Society, the World Medical Association, the Royal College of Physicians, the Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, and the Royal College of General Practitioners.

The criteria in the bill are so poorly defined and broad in scope that eligibility for assisted suicide could apply to a huge range of conditions which can be effectively treated or palliated. It would be unprofessional and unethical for a doctor to accede to assisted suicide in these circum­stances. Proponents continually champion so-called safeguards, but experience elsewhere is that safeguards do not prevent abuse, and there is plenty of evidence for this. Doctors like evidence.

The vast majority of doctors oppose assisted suicide because we know it is unsafe and unethical. Patients need to have confidence that the doctor's attention will be directed exclusively towards supportive care and the provision of means to control the illness or condition, and its symptoms.

Dr Stephen MW Hutchison,

Consultant Physician in Palliative Medicine, Highland Hospice, 1 Bishops Road, Inverness.

I NOTE that meeting terminal and other long-term sufferers' wishes to have help when they wish to have a peaceful, dignified end is being debated again. It is right that such sufferers are offered individually-focused palliative and hospice care, and are not coerced in any way to end their lives, but for those who can take no more, assistance is welcome. Prior consent can be built into wills or powers of attorney while the individual is fully competent, to be considered only at end-of-life need.

The situation of those who suddenly lose all movement and/or mental capacity and are thus unable even actively in any way to help in the terminal act needs special consideration, and carefully worded legislation is essential. In all other cases, it must be clear that it is the sufferer's own entirely personal desire to have assisted help.

Compassion drives concern and this must not be abused just because to some without major cause of distress life does not seem worth living. More than 100,000 suicide attempts are reportedly made every year in the UK, some 5000 success­fully, quite independently of "outside" help.

There is clearly room for greatly improved support to help reduce the incidence. That is a separate issue, but needs to be addressed more compassionately as a state welfare issue too, rather than leaving it all to voluntary organisations like the Samaritans, who, while doing a good job, can help only a few.

Joe Darby,

Glenburn, St Martins Mill, Dingwall.