This morning: a defence of climate change theory, Margo MacDonald’s assisted suicide bill, wild beavers, England’s World Cup bid, and well deserved praise for our own newspaper delivery teams.
Climate change theory explains everything
Sir,-I do wish Bill Duthie and folk like him would quit their continued wilfully ignorant tirade against the notion of reducing carbon emissions.
Perhaps the label ‘global warming’ is indeed a folly, but anyone familiar with the idea will know the correct term is ‘climate change’.
Some places will be warmer, including Scotland in the summer, but this also means a wetter summer!
Winters round these parts are meant to be getting colder and longer. There is no contradiction between the current conditions and the climate change theory.
Our climate’s normal fluctuations (over decades and centuries) are also playing a part in confusing the matter for many people.
I do agree, however, that pensioners should be better looked after.
Daryl Smith.Main Street,Invergowrie.
Bill’s defeat was right result
Sir,-I read Dr John Cameron’s very heartfelt letter ‘People want to choose’ (November 30). However, I feel I must point out the commonly-held misunderstanding it contains.
Margo MacDonald’s bill seeks to make it legal to take an action with the intent of causing the death of the patient. It is this question of intent with which those of us who oppose her bill disagree. This is not the same as always taking all possible actions to prolong life as Dr Cameron would seem to imply.
There is no obligation to strive officiously to preserve life. Dr Cameron asks “What good was served by staff using every trick of modern medicine to prevent nature taking its course?” The answer in many cases is there was no point, nor any obligation.
If the treatment available were to be over-burdensome or intolerable to someone, or of minimal benefit, then it should not be given. For example, it is perfectly acceptable for someone with advanced terminal cancer to refuse, or be refused, arduous sessions of chemotherapy or radiotherapy where clearly they would be of limited benefit but cause greater suffering. In such a case the best course of action would be effective palliative care and, as Dr Cameron suggests, prayers for a peaceful death.
I would acknowledge that very often palliative care, such as the administration of strong drugs for pain control, may hasten death. The important point, however, is that the intention of such treatment is to ease pain and make the person as comfortable as possible, not to kill them.
This active taking of life is the main premise of Ms MacDonald’s bill and it is that with which many opponents of it fundamentally disagree. It should be noted that the Care not Killing Coalition, who are leading opposition to this bill, are also promoting another bill for improving palliative care.
Going beyond the main reason for opposing the bill, I would contend that, despite the proposed safeguards and Ms MacDonald’s protestations to the contrary, such a bill cannot but be the start of a slippery slope.
The precedent in this country for this is the Abortion Bill. When this was promoted it came with safeguards that, it was promised, would restrict abortions to situations where the mother’s health was at risk. Who could dispute we now have abortion on demand?
The 85 MSPs, out of the 103 present to vote, who rejected Ms MacDonald’s bill are to be congratulated.
Gerard P. McLaughlin.2 Panmure Terrace,Dundee.
Leave beavers to roam free
Sir,-I completely agree with David Grant (Letters, December 2) in his view that the Tayside beavers should not be captured and relocated. These little outlaws are an affront to professional reputations, and this is not justification for their removal.
What is curious about these local beavers is that people have taken to them very readily, and even landowners have been relatively accommodating.
The pressure to catch them comes from those who think the free beavers will outshine the state-sponsored ones in Argyll.
They may become a nuisance in some areas. While some may disagree, the way to deal with this, I think, is to remove ALL interference.
We can then find our own balance with the beavers and SNH can spend our money on something more productive.
Victor Clements.Scottish Native Woods,1 Crieff Road,Aberfeldy.
Folly of the English media
Sir,-Can anybody with any sporting attachments be surprised that England didn’t get the vote to host the 2018 World Cup?
Having rammed 1966 down everybody’s throats, and having the stupidity to screen a TV programme slagging FIFA for alleged corruption days before the vote, was indeed folly.
Yet the English media were still saying two hours before the vote that they knew they were going to win. Where have we heard that one before?
They think it’s all over … it is now!
Ed Thomson.Camphill,Dundee.
Courier beats the weather
Sir,-I must thank the delivery service for getting our Courier to us every day so far in Broughty Ferry when the Royal Mail has not made any delivery at all.
Perhaps these paper boys/girls would do a better job than Royal Mail is managing at present and for the past few weeks. Congratulations to you all.
Mrs Joan Chalmers.13 Bayfield Gardens,Broughty Ferry.
Get involved: to have your say on these or any other topics, email your letter to letters@thecourier.co.uk or send to Letters Editor, The Courier, 80 Kingsway East, Dundee DD4 8SL.