By all means help people to die with dignity, but maintain sanctity of life

I cannot accept the principle of assisted suicide, which is nothing of the sort. As soon as someone else is involved, it becomes murder, or any variation thereof, as, by definition, suicide is taking one's own life.

Is it acceptable for someone to demand that someone else kills them? I think not, as it violates the principle of the sanctity of life.

For those who argue that a person who has a right to life must surely have a right to die, it is not that simple. While it may be difficult to argue against the right to die (and for those able-bodied, the opportunity always exists) it is only a short step from the right to die to an implied, or even explicit, duty to die, so as not to be a burden on family, friends or society at large.

For those who say safeguards must be put in place, let me point to various parts of the world where euthanasia is becoming routine. We do not want to go there.

You also need look no further than the abortion act to see how what was proposed as a last resort to be used only in exceptional circumstances has become abortion on demand as a means of contraception.

We must resist the proposals put forward by Margo MacDonald. The answer is to ensure that everyone who needs it receives the highest possible quality of palliative care so that people suffering from terminal illnesses do, indeed, die with dignity.

STEWART GEDDES

Quality Street Lane

Edinburgh

In considering the debate on assisted suicide, one cannot help be struck by the contrast between the contributions by Bob Taylor and the Rev Ian Galloway (Letters, 11 December).

Mr Taylor offers a measured and pragmatic view on a dilemma that few if any of us would wish to face, recognising that any democratic country's moral and legal codes need to evolve and, on occasion, adapt with appropriate safeguards to the needs of the few, whilst also protecting the many. In doing so, he at least offers the prospect that Margo MacDonald's consultation paper be given meaningful and mature consideration.

By contrast, Mr Galloway patronisingly regurgitates religious fundamentalist dogma, which essentially insists that nothing should change, regardless of how this might impact on those who seek, with dignity, to choose to end their own suffering and that of their loved ones. His statement that those who might wish to end their own lives should "be helped to find hope and rediscover their potential for living" is vacuous and insensitive, and graphically demonstrates how out of touch with reality organised religions are.

BILL GOODALL

Baird Terrace

Edinburgh

Like Gordon Aitken (Letters, 12 December), I am alarmed by the previous day's letter from Ian Galloway, convener of the Church of Scotland's Church and Society Council. Did he consult his council before writing "we believe every life matters"? Or is this the individual opinion of the convener of a caucus of a minority of the minority who think life is a "gift" from an imaginary creator?

Margo MacDonald's bill deserves serious consideration for the plight of incurable or degenerative disability, not proselytising "love" or futile "hope".

CHILTON INGLIS

Wilton Street

Glasgow