I CAN sympathise with Josh Aaron-Mennie and agree with him completely, but come at the question from a slightly different angle (SNP activist to appeal for assisted dying support, October 27). Most of the discussion seems to be about helping people to die, and regarding it as a form of positive killing.
I do not see it that way. While there is often mention of doctors being bound by the Hippocratic oath to preserve life, I think that is not the whole story. Yes, that oath directs doctors to preserve life, but surely also to relieve suffering.
I do not believe that it asks doctors to make the choice that they must leave someone in extreme agony for hours, days and sometimes weeks, in case further relief of their suffering should hasten the already inevitable death.
If the death is inevitable in a relatively short space of time, surely the concern should turn to relieving that suffering to the maximum, even if a side effect is that weeks or days of agony are shortened. Can a doctor honestly say that he is doing his best for the patient if he allows suffering to continue if he could alleviate it, when the end is a matter of certainty and the timescale unpredictable?
A situation such as that in the article occurred in my own family not so long ago, where pain relief was denied at the point where the inevitable death might be hastened, while the spouse had to watch helplessly for several days. What a burden to impose on those left behind!
Let us stop talking about assisted suicide and instead of maximum relief of suffering, where slightly earlier death has to be an acceptable side effect. I hope Mr Aaron-Mennie’s resolution finds favour.
P Davidson
Falkirk
I CAN understand that people are looking for some hope in the ongoing battle with Covid-19, but the suggestion of having an amnesty will bring long term pain (and potential death) for short-term relief. No amnesty is possible if both sides don’t agree, and I don’t know how a virus could be persuaded to take the day off!
Yes, it’s important to give hope in what is and will continue to be a long drawn-out battle with a pandemic that is sweeping the world, causing pain, death and misery, but let’s not just switch off and give it a greater chance to infect others.
Cllr Kenny MacLaren
Paisley
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel