Madam, – If MSPs and MPs are meant to represent the people who voted for them, why are some of our elected representatives still arguing against assisted dying when several polls have shown that the vast majority of people are in favour?
Why should someone’s suffering be prolonged because other people have decided it must?
We expect to be active participants in most medical decisions, having moved away from the “doctor knows best” mentality of the past, so why can’t we be allowed to make decisions about where and when we die?
People who are suffering unbearably and with no hope of recovery should be able to choose a quick and peaceful death instead of a period of prolonged misery.
Contrary to what a public letter signed by several MSPs suggested, (Calls to legalise assisted suicide opposed by MSPs, Courier, April 8) the “cold, soulless society” is the one that would prolong suffering just because other people think that the sufferer should stay alive.
These politicians should follow the example of Vince Cable MP, who recently said that he has changed his mind and now supports assisted dying “having listened to [his] constituents”.
Maybe those MSPs need to follow his example and also to read the stories of the many desperately ill people who have shared their experience in the media in recent years.
Knowing life can painlessly be ended when we choose can make the final months more bearable.
I hope it would never be a choice that I would need to make, but just knowing it was an option would be comforting in the same way that I have insurance despite hoping that I’ll never need it.
I can’t understand why Murdo Fraser MSP thinks that legal assisted dying would “dilute [society’s] palliative care offer”.
Excellent palliative care and assisted dying should exist side by side so that people get the best possible care for as long as they want it and help to die when that becomes their preference.
Moira Symons.
Tayside Group Coordinator,
Friends at the End.
May the donkey in Brexit talks
Madam, – Further to Jim Parker’s letter (May is a lion among donkeys, Courier, April 10).
Methinks the comparison is the wrong way round!
Since the beginning Mrs May has failed to take account of the lack of a clear mandate to pursue Brexit at any cost.
She has made no attempt to reconcile the range of opinions and concerns, she has continually rebuffed any consensual approach to negotiations and instead focused on her own solution, even to the extent of continually trying to force that through Parliament.
Her focus is on trying to repair the fractures in the Tory party rather than the good of the UK as a whole.
Whatever the outcome may yet be the recriminations will continue for a very long time.
Mrs May thinks that once there is an implemented outcome the lies, misrepresentations, and rose-tinted pronouncements particularly from the Leave promoters, will be forgotten.
The correct comparison is more akin to that attributed to Earl Haig in the First World War. And while we wait for history to revise or confirm that analogy we will be suffering the consequences, regardless of the 2016 opinion, which was not the ‘will of the people’ but of the few.
Nick Cole.
Balmacron Farmhouse,
Meigle.
Rule takers not rule makers
Madam, – I was rather surprised that DM Clark believes Scotland’s fishing industry is safer in Westminster’s hands rather than our own (Fishing industry safer in Whitehall’s hands, Courier, April 8).
Your correspondent is obviously unaware of Westminster documents revealing the underhand tactics used by Edward Heath’s government when signing up to a Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) in full knowledge of the deleterious effects it would have on our industry, with the term, “expendable” being applied to Scottish fishing interests.
The faces at Westminster may have changed, but Brexit has shown Scots the culture remains, with the ghost of Heath once again stalking our fishing communities
DM Clark should also take into account the long term policy of the SNP is to restructure the CFP or scrap it altogether. There is concern in England that their future relationship with the EU will be as “rule takers” rather than “rule makers”.
To be a “vassal” state.
The Liberal Democrat MP Layla Moran expressed it succinctly as, “If you’re not at the table, you are on the menu.”
I am at a loss to understand why your correspondent is worried by the thought of Scots pulling up our own chair to the international table. However, this misplaced trust in a London establishment, described by him as, “currently a shambles”, ignores the reality of over three centuries of shambolic rule over every aspect of Scottish life.
Finally, the apprehension regarding, “dictatorial” rule is understandable, but concerns should rightly be aimed in Westminster’s direction, not Brussels.
Ken Clark.
c/o 15 Thorter Way,
Dundee.
Keeping voters informed
Madam, – Amid all the demands for a second referendum on leaving the European Union, there is no mention of how such a referendum will be conducted.
On the first referendum, Remainers say that Brexiteers were not told about the disadvantages of leaving.
Conversely, Remainers were not told about the disadvantages of staying.
Should a second referendum be held, who will tell the voters the pros and cons of leaving and staying?
A government which has demonstrated its desire to stay in the European Union?
The government should state its intention of abiding by the result of a referendum – and mean it.
George Dobbie.
51 Airlie Street,
Alyth.
Their word is not their bond
Madam, – Is there anyone out there who believes anything our politicians tell us?
We have already had a national referendum worded by our elected representatives who agreed to abide by the result. We decided to leave and they did not.
Three years have passed since the vote.
If the politicians put as much effort in rebuilding this country as they have trying to con us out of our democratic vote we would not have people on the dole, living in damp houses and others on housing waiting lists.
John G Phimister.
63 St Clair St,
Kirkcaldy.
Democracy in name only
Madam, – There were 850 objections to the proposed housing, but it seems local community objections do not count any more.
Why have a local Fife planning department when, at a flip of a coin, the Scottish Government can over-ride decisions made in Fife.
It smacks so much of Parliament in that the majority of people voted for Brexit but, at the end of the day, you will get what you are given. Regardless.
Oliver Cromwell would have been turning in his grave.
Mrs J. Forrest.
26 Pettycur Road,
Kinghorn.
