Euthanasia

I suppose that there are those (Cannukbard at the front of the queue!!) who would say that it's simply an "age thing", but time does seem to pass by increasingly quickly. I can hardly believe that a full week has passed since I last posted on this blog. Okay, it's been a busy week in some respects, and part of that busy-ness was writing another letter to The (Glasgow) Herald newspaper. Amazingly, this one has been published - three in just a few weeks! Either the editor is getting fewer letters or, perhaps, the standard of my letter-writing is improving!! :-)

Anyway, for those who don't read The Herald, here is the letter (which was published without any editing!!):

Putting down a dog is vet’s decision, not the dog’s
Jane Hunter (Letters, March 6) makes the not unusual plea for legalisation of euthanasia, based on the fact that a dog will be "put down" if the vet considers it is in too much pain. The simple analogy is then drawn that if it is good enough for a dog, it is good enough for a human.

Two points may be raised: 1. a human is more than a dog (or other animal); 2. the decision is the vet's, not the dog's. However, one would also wish to emphasise both the high level of palliative care available for the terminally ill in the hospices and the advances in medical research leading to new, and effective, forms of treatment that can, in many cases, bring about a full, or partial, cure.

One major concern is that voluntary euthanasia would be the thin end of a wedge. The next stage would be the "vet stage" (involuntary/compulsory euthanasia) when a doctor would decide when a person should die. This could move to the compulsory euthanasia of other groups deemed to be living less than useful lives.

The claim would be made that such extremes would never be reached. Unfortunately, the evidence would seem to dictate the contrary. When abortion was legalised in 1967, it was intended that only in situations in which there was a medical reason for that fatal procedure would it be used. The simple fact is that social abortions have, to all intent, killed a generation's worth of potential.

With many others, I have deep sympathy for Margo MacDonald in the condition in which she finds herself. However, I do believe - as passionately as Jane Hunter seems to believe the opposite - that euthanasia is not the answer. Many procedures in life are reversible - euthanasia is not.

I will endeavour to get at least one post published, here, before next Saturday!!