Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Monday, 8th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Assisted suicide debate



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Your interview with Margo MacDonald (16 July) and her campaign to change the law on assisted suicide was very challenging.
Her personal story about her horrible illness pulled at the heartstrings and you were left with a lot of sympathy for people in such situations. However, her suggestion to change the law, as was done in Holland and other countries, is unnecessary. Ms
MacDonald can never be objective on this subject and laws should not be changed on emotion or knee jerk reaction; that simply leads to bad laws which damage the whole of society.

The article failed to answer the most fundamental question "what is human dignity"? It is wrong to suggest that any person can ever lose his or her dignity. Dignity is not a scientific concept, but it is something that everyone needs to accept and is recognised in international law. Dignity is far more than 'what can I do?', it is about who we are.

Assisted suicide is a reflection of the unacceptable belief by a person that another person has lost his dignity and that his or her life is not worth living and should be ended. Once quality of life becomes the yardstick by which the value of human life is judged the protection offered to most vulnerable members of society is weakened.

The UK has one of the best palliative care services in the world and no-one needs to die in pain anymore. The majority of doctors do not want the law changed, as they believe the law not only protects the patient but protects them as well.

Changing the law is dangerous since it may be considered by many elderly and other vulnerable people who feel that they are a burden to family, carers and society or that their care may be eating up some of the inheritance which they wanted to pass on. A risk exists that these vulnerable people may believe that a right to die is actually a duty to die.

Vulnerable people need to hear that they are valued and loved by the community; we do this not by changing the law, but by putting more resources into palliative care.

(DR) CALUM MACKELLAR
Director of research, Scottish Council on Human Bioethics
Morningside Road
Edinburgh




The full article contains 381 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 18 July 2008 10:48 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 19/07/2008 00:16:21
'A risk exists that these vulnerable people may believe that a right to die is actually a duty to die.'

People, whether they are vulnerable or not might well wrongly infer all sorts of rubbish from the existence of perfectly good laws. That is not a good reason for repealing such laws. We should not imagine that the function of laws is to send out ' messages'.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.