Referendum should be used to ask the people's views on assisted dying
I know there will be an immediate response from those who would choose to end their life because of suffering, but what percentage of the population is that?
We should be pouring resources into making life as pain-free and comfortable as possible, not training people to administer death.
READ MORE: Andrew Tickell: Assisted dying debate deserves better than bad-faith politics
It will change perceptions of what is acceptable. It will divert funding from keeping people pain-free, allowing them to die with dignity without feeling they are a burden. Why spend money training people to kill?
It has now occurred to me that this is such a massive question with such ramifications that it should have been the subject of a referendum in the way the public were asked to vote on Brexit.
I believe the people should have a voice on this matter, not a few with vested interests, and cannot understand why this was not offered.
In hindsight it appears to have been dumped on an unsuspecting public. It may be that within the charmed walls of political circles there has been discussion, but it certainly has not been a regular topic of discussion in community halls, hubs, cafes, leisure centres, clubs, anywhere in fact where people gather. Did your representative hold meetings about this proposal? Sadly that will probably begin to happen now – possibly too late.
READ MORE: Kelly Given: This isn't mere policy dispute – it's life and death
I would love an amendment asking for a referendum. Why should a group of politicians set us down this path without the consent of the people? They are allowed a vote of conscience. Big deal – making life-and-death decisions about other human beings without asking those very human beings.
I hope with all my heart this falls, and while I feel for the small group of sufferers relative to the whole population who feel this is their only way out, we cannot set this into law for the majority, among whose ranks are the disabled, the elderly, the addicted, the suicidal, the depressed, the poor, the misdiagnosed, the homeless, the desperate, the solitary.
Are we expendable because we are deemed a drain on resources clothed in kindness and mercy-speak? Do you feel duped? We see you.
The people should have their say, not politicians, as unfortunately no-one trusts politicians these days.
Isobel Delussey
Address supplied
ASSISTED dying is concerned with those facing a period of painful terminal illness, leading to death, so may wish to skip that journey and go directly to the main event.
However, many people in that position will be wise enough to have made their own arrangements to leave, and do not require assistance.
There are also disabled people who have found their painless but limited-activity lives to be unenjoyable, so will simply kill themselves, and some do that every year. So across the spectrum, many will have already dealt with their own situations, so no assistance needed.
In Scotland at present, helping someone to die is known as murder – and should remain so, as legalising it will open a route to be used by those wishing to be rid of someone for their own selfish benefit.
Malcolm Parkin
Kinross
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Herald Scotland
4 hours ago
- The Herald Scotland
Will the SNP apologise when it realises it got it wrong on nuclear?
At the present time it is estimated that by 2050 the electricity demand will require an average of 80GW per hour. Without nuclear energy increasing substantially to replace gas-fired plants there is no possibility of the energy sector achieving net zero. Without nuclear plants in Scotland there is no way net zero can be achieved. I suppose we shall have to hold on for a few years before we get an apology from the SNP Government (if it is still in office) that it should have changed its view on nuclear energy in the interests of the Scottish people. Charles Scott, Edinburgh. Read more letters Look at the German warning The Scottish Government's reluctance to recognise nuclear power's value in reducing carbon emissions is perplexing. Our electricity grid cannot operate solely on renewables without sufficient storage and balancing capacity to provide stability, neither of which we currently have, nor a clear strategy to provide. Germany offers a clear warning of the potential consequences. Their heavy reliance on renewables without adequate balancing power has led to creative accounting by paying Poland to take their excess electricity as it's cheaper than paying renewables operators to switch off their surplus destabilising capacity. Their decision to close down nuclear power plants has worsened the situation, increasing carbon emissions due to greater reliance on fossil fuels to preserve grid stability. It would be a great shame for Scotland to reject the benefits of high-energy-density nuclear power like that provided safely and reliably by Torness for the past 37 years, especially given the nation's past history of innovation in electricity production by creative Scots pioneers like James Watt, James Clerk Maxwell, Lord Kelvin and Tom Johnston. These giants helped establish the reliable electricity systems we often take for granted today. Our current policy makers should do some homework. Keith Burns, East Linton. EU return is just a dream Alex Orr (Letters, June 25) tells us that the forecast that leaving the European Union would be economically damaging has proved to be correct. This will come as no surprise to those of us who voted to remain. Ian McConnell tells us in the same issue that the majority of the population is now in favour of rejoining ('Are Brexit revelations a mandate for Labour to take UK back into the EU?', The Herald, June 25). The case for this is therefore overwhelming. I do not think it is likely to happen, however. The economic argument in favour of remaining was equally strong at the time of the referendum, but those who campaigned for Brexit dismissed it ("f*** business," said a former prime minister; "we've had enough of experts," said one of his cronies). Those who voted Leave were, I believe, uninterested in economics. For them it was about "sovereignty": they loathed the EU and felt membership diminished their country. This view seems to have been particularly strong among English Leave voters. This group of people is not open to the pragmatic arguments in favour of rejoining. Their view is essentially visceral and cannot be changed. They may now be a minority (though large) but they have substantial backing in the media. It would be a brave politician who took them on. There is also the question of whether the European Union would want the UK back, knowing that a large segment of the population remained opposed. For these reasons, I think the UK rejoining is not on the horizon. An independent Scotland, however, would probably be a different story. Those of us in favour of both membership of the European Union and an independent Scotland can only dream, unfortunately. Alan Jenkins, Glasgow. • Alex Orr writes a very informative letter regarding the current state of the UK economy, relating it to the effects of Brexit. It is refreshing to read a letter regarding the economy which does not end with the opinion that independence is the answer. Closer union with the EU might help, but the mess that has been brought about by the Brexiters will probably be impossible to repair. It is wishful thinking that an independent Scotland would make any difference. Malcolm Rankin, Seamill. Double standards A report from the Scottish Funding Council attributes the University of Dundee's financial crisis to poor financial judgment and weak governance. The Scottish Government has now provided a total of £62 million to bail the university out ("Ministers use powers to grant new cash bailout to university", The Herald, June 25). As a result a significant number of senior managers have been held accountable and have left the organisation through dismissal or resignation The cost of procuring the two ferries, MV Glen Sannox and MV Glen Rosa, has increased from £97m to more than £460m. That increase has resulted in an injection of public funds six-fold greater than that provided to the University of Dundee. There is also the significant indirect economic impact on island communities caused by years of delay. Yet nobody has been held accountable and there have been no resignations or dismissals from the management at either the Scottish Government (at political or directorate level) or at its agencies, Transport Scotland and CMAL. Why is such a different approach to mismanagement of public funds considered acceptable? George Rennie, Inverness. Dame Jackie Baillie has criticised Scotland's cancer treatment waiting times (Image: PA) In defence of NHS Scotland It appears, disappointingly, that Dr Gerald Edwards (Letters, June 26) has been swayed by political sound bites instead of factual data when claiming that 'cancer patients in Scotland are not being treated promptly'. The median wait time from decision to treat to first treatment is three days. According to that self-proclaimed fountain of wisdom, Dame Jackie Baillie, the latest figures on NHS Scotland cancer waiting times are 'disastrous and an indication of the SNP's mismanagement of the NHS' ("Scotland's cancer waiting times rise to their highest level since records began", The Herald, June 25). If that is indeed the case, and not just another disingenuous Dame Jackie anti-SNP sound-bite, then how would she describe the situation in Wales: perhaps 'catastrophic'? In Wales the devolved Labour Government has not only given up (since 2019) on reporting the 31-day target for the start of treatment, which NHS Scotland is achieving in 94.1% cases and NHS England in 91.3% of cases, NHS Wales is only achieving the 62-day target for initial referral to start of treatment in 60.5% of cases. On the 62-day target, NHS Scotland at 68.9% is performing 13.9% better than Wales and NHS England at 69.9% is performing 15.5% better. Of course the broader picture is that across the UK the NHS is struggling as cancers are increasingly suspected earlier and people are living longer (NHS Scotland has seen 17.5% and 6.3% increases in 62-day and 31-day referrals since the pandemic) while staffing levels continue to suffer as a result of Brexit and hostile UK Government immigration policies. If the SNP Scottish Government stands accused of mismanagement then presumably the Labour Welsh Government stands accused of gross negligence? Despite her patronising rhetoric, don't expect broad assessment and honest objectivity from Dame Jackie and the Labour Party on Scotland's NHS within the confines of UK Government policies any time soon. Besides more deceptive sound bites one should expect more desperate references in the Scottish Parliament to relatively few poor experiences plucked from the hundreds of thousands of daily interactions with patients who are generally appreciative of the high quality of overall service delivered by NHS Scotland. Stan Grodynski, Longniddry.
The Guardian
20 hours ago
- The Guardian
John Major condemns ‘callous' aid cuts and growing national self-interest
John Major has condemned cuts to overseas aid as 'callous' and shortsighted, in a blistering speech that took aim at leaders obsessed by national self-interest and explicitly linked Donald Trump with Xi Jinping as the world's main destabilising forces. Arguing that his age and lack of connection to everyday politics gave him the ability to speak freely, the former prime minister said Trump's reliance on threats would embolden tyrants, and said the supposed benefits of Brexit were 'as elusive as Lord Lucan'. Giving a lecture in Salisbury Cathedral in memory of Edward Heath, another former Conservative prime minister, Major noted how the Russian invasion of Ukraine had 'erased the global peace dividend', but he criticised the choices then made. 'We, among others, are now to spend more on defence, and to finance that by cutting aid to the world's most wretched and helpless,' Major said. 'Many people, with voices that will never be heard, will suffer and die because countries have made this change in budgetary priorities. 'It is shortsighted and, to my mind, callous. And the fallout, over time, will be greater migrant demand to live in the richer countries.' In a lengthy section focused on Trump's America, noting the US president's seeming favouritism of Russia over Ukraine and his threats to annex Greenland, Major said: 'This is not America as I have known her. This is not democracy as I understand it.' While accepting that Europe had become complacent in relying on the might of US defence, Major condemned Washington's treatment of Ukraine, saying it had been 'threatened, bullied and had military and intelligence withdrawn as if she were the aggressor'. Major argued that Trump's wider tactics on the world stage, including against Iran, were likely to bring short-term benefits at best. 'President Trump may achieve extraordinary things. His very unpredictability promotes uncertainty – and sometimes fear – of what he might do next. In this fashion, he gains compliance with his wishes,' he said. 'The timid may crumble, the cautious may appease, but I hope the president understands that agreement under duress is false and unreliable. If someone has their foot on your neck, you may comply with their wishes ‒ but you will never forget the foot.' Likening Trump's tactics to those of Xi, the Chinese leader, Major said neither 'offer the assurance of an ordered and peaceful future'. On Brexit, Major called for the UK to sign up to the EU's single market and customs union, saying: 'I continue to search for the 'benefits of Brexit' but they are as elusive as Lord Lucan. Some politicians talk of them – but are unable to tell us what they are, or where they may be found.' More broadly, Major warned about what he said would be the dire consequences of a world filled with populist leaders reliant on might and guided only by national self-interest. Also using the example of Gaza, he asked: 'Is starvation now a legitimate weapon of war?' Major went on: 'Is barbarianism now acceptable if the barbarian is strong enough – or the victim without friends? Can it be that our world is so exhausted, politics so tainted, self-interest so predominant that it has abandoned compassion? Is might now right? Has the law, human decency and political morality been cast aside? 'Or is it, perhaps, as simple as this: that our world is now beginning to elect leaders concerned only about national self-interest? If so, if politics leads countries to hunker down in their own little trenches of interest, ignore reason, bypass diplomacy, forgo enlightened self-interest – then heaven help us all.'
The Independent
a day ago
- The Independent
UK asylum plans shows post-Brexit Britain is ‘in very dark place', Albanian PM warns
Sir Keir Starmer 's plan to send failed asylum seekers abroad shows post- Brexit Britain is in 'a very dark place', Albania 's prime minister has warned. In a blistering attack, Edi Rama said the prime minister was 'looking for places to dump migrants' - a plan that would have been inconceivable a decade ago. He said Brexit had ushered in a shift in public discourse, which means the 'totally unacceptable, totally ridiculous, totally shameful' are now normalised. And, in an interview with The Guardian, Mr Rama said: 'It's one of those things that 10 years ago would simply have not been imaginable… that Britain would look for places to dump immigrants. 'The fact that today it's not just imaginable, it's happening, is not because of Keir Starmer or Rishi Sunak doing something outrageous; it's because of the country being in a very dark place.' The socialist Albanian PM added: 'Eighty per cent of the things that are said, or are written, or are accepted as a normal part of the discourse in today's Britain are things that [before Brexit] would have been totally unacceptable, totally ridiculous, totally shameful.' Mr Rama's interview comes a month after Sir Keir said Britain was in talks with a handful of countries over 'return hubs' for failed asylum seekers as part of the government's crackdown on small boats crossing the English Channel. The PM announced the plans while visiting Albania's capital, Tirana, but suffered a setback as Mr Rama insisted his country would not host one of the UK's planned hubs. But, insisting his comments were not a dig at Sir Keir, he said his British counterpart is a 'very decent and delightful person' and that he has rejected similar plans under Mr Sunak and Boris Johnson in the past. Albania currently operates a similar returns hub programme with Italy. Countries thought to be under consideration by the UK include Serbia, Bosnia and North Macedonia. Downing Street said its objective is to remove people who have exhausted all routes to staying in the UK and have no lawful basis to remain here. 'We have seen people in the past arriving from safe countries but then using stalling tactics such as losing their paperwork or starting a family to frustrate that removal,' Sir Keir's spokesman said at the time. The prime minister admitted return hubs would not in themselves halt the boats but he said that, combined with other measures designed to tackle smuggling gangs and return those with no right to be in the UK, it would 'allow us to bear down on this vile trade and make sure that we stop those people crossing the Channel'.
