IN today's Agenda column, Aidan Cook of Care Not Killing acknowledges that both sides in the assisted suicide debate want to limit suffering ("Assisted suicide flies in the face of notions of justice and compassion", The Herald, January 13).

It is certainly true that neither side has a monopoly on kindness.

It is puzzling, therefore, that he describes those who might wish to take advantage of the proposed legislation as being "invulnerable"; for the truth is that we are all vulnerable. Intolerable suffering in its many guises may visit anyone of us and to deny those few who might seek assistance in bringing that to an end must surely damage compassion.

He also raises two of the canards regularly employed by those who would deny others having any choice in managing their death. These are the spectre of the "slippery slope" and the suggestion that improving palliative care will provide the solution. However, the evidence coming from 17 years of experience in Oregon, which has the model closest to what is being proposed here, provides no support for there being any uncontrollable slide into wholesale abuse, while the fact that Quebec has recently enacted a Dying with Dignity law, shows that palliative care and assisted suicide can comfortably coexist. A Quebecois now has the statutory right to both.

The concepts underlying the Assisted Suicide Bill include compassion, but giving individuals the choice of remaining in charge of what is happening to them, should they wish that, is equally vital. We must also recognise that tolerating the measured conduct of others, of which we do not necessarily approve, is the hallmark of a civilised society.

These are highly sensitive matters and there is substantial moral equivalence in the debate. Nevertheless, to rely upon spurious arguments, thereby declaring that "assisted suicide makes a mockery of us as guardians of justice and compassion" surely discredits Mr Cook's position.

Dr Bob Scott,

Humanist Society Scotland,

Creitendam Lodge,

Balmaha Road, Drymen