I HAVE great respect for Margo MacDonald's personal campaign to change the Scottish law on assisted suicide in the Scottish Parliament.
This clearly comes from her personal experience of illness and a desire to help others.
Her first bill was constructed in an ethical framework but rejected by MSPs. Her second go at changing the legislation adopts a pragmatic, practical approach which she feels preserves patient autonomy and supports individual decisions with a self-administered "death pill" prescribed by a doctor.
I remain against the concept of assisted suicide after 34 years' experience as a GP.
The majority of protagonists for a change in the assisted suicide law have never listened to somebody who has attempted suicide and later regretted things.
They have never had to assess mental capacity in older people. They have no concept as to how mental capacity changes and has subtle degrees.
They have never listened to the list of medically-prescribed street drugs for purchase by troubled young people and criminals. They have never dealt with an adult protection issue in a vulnerable adult. They will have never given a poor prognosis in cancer and seen the patient live beyond the best professional guess at prognosis. They may not have witnessed a family pulling together to give death with dignity at home to somebody with dread disease.
Margo MacDonald's bill is a pragmatic solution to an ethical problem, but these are the practical problems I anticipate of putting her theory into clinical practice.
Most doctors in the NHS today are just too busy to contribute to this repeated debate in the Scottish Parliament and I hope the MSPs with their fingers on the buttons have at least read this letter and talked to some vulnerable people and care professionals with some practical experience before deciding their voting intention.
Dr James DM Douglas,
Luskentyre,
Seafield Gardens, Fort William.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article