Letter: Stop scare stories

It's not clear what prompted Christopher Bechtel's reflections on the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill (Comment, 2 November). It seemed to amount to little more than a rehash of the old "slippery slope" argument.

The bill is not vague on the distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia. It makes it quite clear that a request to die can be made in appropriate circumstances; that those circumstances would have to be verified by the appropriate practitioners, and that the wishes of the individual, and not those of other parties, would be paramount.

Mr Bechtel is quite right to point out that there is an agonising, indeed chilling, dividing line in the current situation. That is the point where an individual may no longer be capable of making a rational, informed decision, and a medical practitioner makes it for them.

But that simply strengthens the case for legislation to make clear the role of all parties. It does not mean that once the principle of assisted death is accepted, the gory floodgates will be opened. Once laws are passed there is a need to monitor and scrutinise the operation.

Is there any reason why the Scottish Parliament should not be able to do that even in such a sensitive area as this?

I am sure that Margo MacDonald, the initiator of the bill, would be prepared to accept reasoned amendments at the right time to give greater clarity to what is proposed.

It is to this that the Scottish Council on Human Bioethics should be turning its attention, rather than providing scare a stories which insult the intelligence of all of us.

Bob Taylor

Shiel Court

Glenrothes, Fife