MODERN medical science will increasingly strand us all in the worst possible world. We can keep people alive who in the past would have died naturally. Chris Whitty (pictured) recently argued that “Modern medicine is amazing at keeping people alive and extending life … and this for some people is exactly the right thing to do … but I think the question should be what do people want themselves, and, particularly if treatments have significant side-effects, you’re always going to have a trade-off.”

Estimated time until death (terminality) is a poor and insufficient metric in deciding who can have access to a compassionate assisted release. The degree of unabated and continuing suffering surely must be at the core of this debate.

Anything else condemns the many who have unbearable but not “terminal” conditions to a lifetime of torture extended by medical science. The NHS was created to protect us, cradle to grave, not to torture us. Ask yourself what you would want in such a situation. Ask yourself what choices you want available to those you love most.

There must be a provision in any new assisted dying legislation for “exceptional circumstances” involving non-terminal suffering, where there is no effective cure available, now or on a reasonable horizon, and where the current and future quality of life of an individual is recognised to be unsupportable by any compassionate standard.

Exceptional circumstances could recognise that: the quality of life of the individual is catastrophically poor and likely to continue to be so; the above is supported by medical experts; the individual is of sound mind, well-informed and has agency in relation to all available choices; and ensure that effective regulation is in place to protect and support the individual in their choices.

One final note. We already have a version of assisted dying legally in place for non-terminal sufferers but it is cruelty masquerading as piety. Any patient, terminal or not, can choose to starve themselves to death. This IS assisted dying. Doctors administer drugs to induce a coma and a mix of the drugs and organs shutting down eventually cause death.

Why would we keep it this way? Does it allow loved ones more time with the sufferer? No. Most have other family commitments, jobs.

It just leaves many feeling they abandoned their loved one at the end, and condemns others to a cruel deathwatch. And the sufferer? Does it give one last chance to change their mind? No. They are paralysed in a coma, possibly suffering, possibly experiencing the horrors of ICU delirium.

They WILL die but only after days and days. Surely we all deserve a compassionate choice for assisted dying, at a time of our choosing, surrounded by those we love.

Jason Robertson

Glasgow

DOESN’T Graeme McGarry’s Thursday article seem to be like pointing out that the Titanic has sunk rather than questioning why it sank in the first place (Competency, not conspiracy, is the issue in Rangers’ VAR row, Jan 4)?

It’s easy to get hung up about the minutiae of one Old Firm incident, but don’t we all know that scant mention is ever made for a provincial team, and their supporters know full well the many failings of Scottish football’s implementation of VAR?

As we saw in the Hibs v Hearts game, play was pulled back from a Hibs attack to award a penalty to Hearts, the offence unseen by the referee, the decision made by the VAR official. So, who’s controlling the game, the ref or someone sitting in a studio in Glasgow?

The time it takes to pursue the process is far too long and disrupts the game; it needs to be slicker.

Meanwhile, the clock chunters on and leads to inordinate time added on – we’re now getting added time of 10 minutes or more. In the Old Firm match the added time was eight minutes, the ref played 11. Why? Why isn’t the clock stopped?

The joy of scoring goals is being stripped from the game as the excitement of the goal is now often muted by having to wait until the opinion of the VAR official agrees with the decision.

Surely the interference by the VAR official in the administration of the game is just plain wrong, as that’s the ref’s job?

Only the team coaches should be able to request a VAR check where they dispute a decision and these should be limited.

I suggest two per half, with perhaps an additional one in the case of extra time.

At the same time, yellow cards should be subject to post-match appeal and remedial sanctions need to be enforced when cards issued are seen post-match to be clearly beyond reasonable for a ref to apply them.

And where refs clearly get it wrong, their reprimand and consequences of it should be public.

The blazers at the SFA are destroying Scottish football. They’re removing the joy from the game by miring it with ludicrous regulations that are destroying its flow and excitement.

We need a root-and-branch rethink of VAR, and now before the damage being done destroys the game as a live spectator sport.

Jim Taylor

Edinburgh