‘Increase hospice funding rather than resorting to a law which may be abused’
Colin Campbell declares that assisted dying can offer the best possible way to depart (Ross-shire Journal, November 22). I was heartened to hear that his father’s final hours were not prolonged in suffering.
I can also testify that as a former nurse practicing several decades ago, I remember when those who were in severe pain and, it seemed, nearing the end of their lives.
They were gradually given more and more pain relief and like Mr Campbell’s father ‘drifted quietly off to sleep’.
He asks the question was this even legal? As was explained to the relatives that it may be that the amount of pain relief given necessary to relief pain would mean that the already weakened body would not survive the dose. Had Harold Shipman not carried out his killing spree, probably this way of dealing compassionately with end-of-life suffering would have continued. The intention in cases like Mr Campbell’s father is primarily to relieve pain and suffering and not to kill the patient. But the assisted dying bill were it to become law would be to kill the patient at that time and is fraught with possible unintended consequences. With the former, the intention is not to kill, with assisted dying it is.
The danger is that the definition of terminal illness that “cannot be reversed by treatment” could include non-terminal conditions such as diabetes and anorexia. Patients could potentially refuse treatment, therefore meaning they might make themselves eligible for assisted suicide.
The right to total conscientious objection is not total under the bill. While a medical professional has no duty to participate directly in assisted dying, they would be obliged to refer patients to willing practitioners.
The bill is also silent on the right of institutions – for example, hospices – to object to assisted suicide provision and/or referrals.
We might say that this country would never be like Canada and offer assisted dying to those who want to end their lives whether terminal or not. We would never hear of people taking 130 hours to die. We would never make people feel a burden or suggest they would be better off dead. An obligatory review of the Act within five years of its passing also leaves the door open to the widening of the above criteria. Mental suffering can be much worse than end of life suffering and who is to say those suffering chronic depression would not be offered assisted suicide, for that is what it is.
Oncologists will say that they have frequently been proved wrong in predicting how long someone may live with cancer. One lady I know told me that her husband was diagnosed with oesophageal cancer and given a prognosis of three months to live and died fifteen years later from some other condition.
Hard cases never make good law, and we should attempt to increase much greater funding for hospices than resorting to passing a law which could be abused.
Irene Munro
Wyvis Crescent
Conon Bridge
