Readers' Letters: My father, a minister, supported assisted dying. He was right

It’s something my father thought of often. As a minister he encountered end‑of‑life situations more often than many. He supported assisted dying, which, when I was younger, surprised me, but as I got older I understood.

Now as then, as a daughter of the manse, I knew God as merciful. When I was young, I imagined God in very absolute terms – all‑knowing, all‑deciding. As I grew older, I began to understand His mercy more clearly.

The main thread in my relationship with God – and in this bill – was and is choice. God entrusts us with discernment, compassion, and the ability to act wisely in the face of suffering. A merciful God does not demand suffering for its own sake, but calls us to meet it with wisdom and compassion. So, it seems to me there’s no problem.

The crucial issue seems to be coercion. And this is the turning point: if we cannot guarantee protection against coercion, the bill will always fail.

I’m not an expert but I do understand why coercion troubles people – it should. Any decision made at the end of life must be freely chosen, without pressure, fear, or manipulation. That is the whole point of choice. Safeguarding against coercion is essential, but it is not a reason to deny compassion to those who are suffering now.

What struck me in the debate was that the tone was thoughtful, humane, and rooted in real experience. No one wants a bill that leaves people vulnerable. But neither should we allow fear to eclipse compassion, or let the worst‑case scenario dictate the choices available to those who are suffering now.

My father understood suffering, and he understood mercy. He believed that choice at the end of life was not a rejection of faith, but an expression of it. I hope our parliament can hold the same balance of compassion and courage when it next considers this subject.

Judith Campbell, Portree, Isle of Skye

Dangerous tool

While probably the correct decision, the rejection of the Assisted Dying Bill by the Scottish Parliament in no way reflects on the merits of the proposal itself.

It is unarguable that someone facing an imminent, painful and undignified death should be allowed to take charge of their own end of life and be offered careful and sympathetic assistance where necessary. We would strongly condemn anyone who denied such a mercy to a suffering animal.

However, on obviously deep personal reflection, a majority of our MSPs have recognised that our modern society simply cannot be trusted not to use this new right for nefarious ends.

Look at the way digital media and AI are being shamefully misused. Perhaps homo sapiens needs to wait for its next evolutionary reincarnation before tools like assisted dying can be safely placed in its hands.

Mike Tibbetts, West Calder, West Lothian

Missed opportunity

What a great shame that our MSPs did not have the courage of their convictions to pass the Assisted Dying Bill, having voted strongly in favour at Stage 1. It seems those MSPs were more fearful of supposed “coercion”, yet one could only choose this route if one had less than six months to live.

The safeguards introduced into the proposed bill were possibly the strongest of any country in the world where assisted dying is in place. Further, the views expressed in the desire to improve palliative care will simply not come to pass as the required funding will not be forthcoming.

The reality around this vote means those in pain and dying have been denied the right to make a choice as they approach the end of their lives and undoubtedly in my view, our MSPs have missed the opportunity for once to deliver something of real benefit to the people of Scotland.

Richard Allison, Edinburgh

Call a referendum

The assisted dying debate is all about choice: giving individuals the options to make their own choices about what happens at the end of our lives. Our politicians shouldn’t be making those choices on our behalf by denying us the chance to make our own.

This is exactly the sort of subject we should be using a referendum for.

Gordon Lawrie, Edinburgh

Changed mind

Being of an age when assisted dying might be very relevant, I followed the debates in the House of Commons and in Holyrood with interest. I began it all feeling vaguely in favour.

I was struck by the constant reference to “coercion”. Most would assume it a form of pressure, however well meant, but when I heard one speaker refer to it as, possibly, a sick and very vulnerable person merely hearing words indicating exhaustion in those helping, I began to see what was meant in that argument.

That changed my mind and if asked these days I answer truthfully that I am against and I am glad Holyrood felt that way also.

An extra bonus was seeing that in the list of those who voted pro-assisted dying in Holyrood, I noted many if not all of those I respect least.

Alexander McKay, Edinburgh

Individual choice

What is it about assisted dying, suicide, that frightens so many people? Isn’t this a simple case of individual choice?

If anyone wants to die, for whatever reason, why should this individual freedom be denied? Why should it be linked to terminal illness with a short-life prognosis? How significant is the risk of coercion, poor medical advice? Are there not simple safeguards against that?

Palliative care, for those who choose it, is what should be universally available, of course.

But in whose interest do protestors speak when they speak of harm? Is it nor harming someone to insist that they continue to live, either in pain or immense mental distress?

Trevor Rigg, Edinburgh

Way forward?

I was disappointed with the Assisted Dying Bill result. During Covid many people, including those who were not ill, had ‘Do Not Resuscitate’ added to their medical notes. This would be because people did not want to live with possible life-changing conditions should their heart stop.

A way forward would be for people to be given the right to add a letter witnessed by a lawyer to their medical notes stating they wished for assisted dying if they had a terminal illness. After all, it is not the politician who is suffering but the individual.

Elizabeth Hands, Armadale, West Lothian

Vaccines vital

As a virologist who once worked on smallpox virus without a safety cabinet or PPE and whose only protection against an infection more likely to kill than a meningococcal infection or Covid-19 was vaccination, I agree wholeheartedly with Dr Al Qutob’s list of benefits that come from immunisation (Letters,18 March), but the resolute pro-vaccination campaign to defeat vaccine misinformation that Dr Al Qutob suggests is probably doomed to fail; history is not supportive of success.

At the end of the 19th century the National Anti-Vaccination League was busy in the UK, with the self-interest of the public showing itself time and time again by long queues for vaccination developing when there was an outbreak of smallpox, but not at other times.

Thanks to vaccination the last naturally occurring case of smallpox in the world fell ill in 1977, but that triumph did not end the anti-vaccination tradition, which has been continued in the UK by people like Dr Andrew Wakefield, whose anti-MMR propaganda has caused the UK to lose its measles-free status.

I despair; the last case of measles that I have seen was in a post-mortem room, a teenager killed by a brain complication of the infection.

Hugh Pennington, Aberdeen

Drilling doomed

I have been struck by those who claim that the route to lower oil and gas costs is to drill further in the North Sea.

It of course seems quite straightforward: if Britain produces more of its own oil and gas, household energy bills should fall. However, the impact on energy bills of a “drill baby drill” approach, as most recently demonstrated by the University of Oxford Smith School, is minimal.

This is because producing more oil and gas in the North Sea would not create the UK’s own special supply, as seems naively to be claimed by some, nor could its price be set specifically for UK citizens. That’s because any new production would be sold on international markets at international prices.

Even if the UK maximised North Sea extraction and returned taxation revenues directly to households, the reduction in energy bills would be at most a modest £82 per year – far smaller than the savings expected from accelerating the shift to renewable energy.

A faster transition away from gas-powered electricity, with the price of electricity set by cheaper and less volatile renewable energy rather than by highly expensive gas, would cut household energy bills by three times as much as maximising North Sea oil and gas.

The best way to keep energy bills low in the long run is to reduce dependence on gas altogether, and staying the course on clean energy will not only slash household energy bills but render the UK truly energy secure for generations to come.

Alex Orr, Edinburgh

Write to The Scotsman

We welcome your thoughts – NO letters submitted elsewhere, please. Write to [email protected] including name, address and phone number – we won’t print full details. Keep letters under 300 words, and in the body of the email – no attachments – and avoid ‘Letters to the Editor/Readers’ Letters’ or similar in your subject line. If referring to an article, include date, page number and heading. No poems.