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.
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