KARIN Currie (Letters, September 12) appears to believe that only those with certain "credentials", namely experience of suffering, can pass comment on assisted suicide. In this particular debate where we are talking about helping people to kill themselves, everyone should and must have a say. It seems that Ms Currie would prefer one side in the debate to just keep quiet.

Also, for the record, I witnessed my mother have a subarachnoid haemorrhage when I was 14. Then came the breast cancer diagnosis and years of suffering from chemotherapy, radiotherapy, a mastectomy and brain surgery. Finally, at the age of 19, I sat by my mother's hospital bed as the doctor explained that a brain tumour had returned and was inoperable. The doctor then said she had maybe six months left.

Needless to say I was devastated by this news and just a short time later I sat by my mother's bed at home and watched her die. At no point throughout those years did I feel like I wanted to help my mum to kill herself nor did she want to do that. I can't imagine Ms Currie knows what it's like for a 19-year-old lad to experience such a thing but I wouldn't use that to silence her opinion.

The truth is that assisted suicide gives the green light to hopelessness and despair. It sanctions suicide as a response to hardship and leaves the vulnerable more vulnerable – especially the disabled, whose lives may be judged less valuable in law. In a week that has seen World Suicide Prevention Day the debate on assisted suicide rages on. Does anyone else see the contradiction? Either suicide is a tragedy that must be avoided or it is a perfectly normal choice.

The drive to change the law comes from a small number of determined individuals who view life as something that can and should be under our absolute control. They are sincere in their beliefs; but what matters here is what is good for society. The law must uphold life and protect the vulnerable.

Martin Conroy, Cockburnspath.