Euthanasia: public opinion and MPs' courage
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Dr John Searle
Sir: Your leading article supports the legalisation of voluntary euthanasia on the grounds of personal autonomy: if I want to die doctors should be allowed to end my life. However, before changes are made in social policy, two questions have to be asked. First is the proposed change necessary, and, second, what will be the wider consequences.
On the evidence of the film on BBC2 last evening (15 March), Cees van Wendel de Joode was given two options. Either his decline and death would bring terrible suffering - pain, choking, suffocation and waterlogged lungs - or these could be prevented by killing him. He was not offered the third option of good palliative care. All the evidence from hospices demonstrates that, even for people with terminal neurological disease, these symptoms can be controlled. That choice was not put to him; his decision was an ill-informed one.
It sounds very plausible to centre the debate on personal freedom; but where the exercise of that freedom infringes the freedom of others, limits should be placed upon it.
The protagonists of euthanasia insist that in Holland euthanasia is only administered at the consistent request of an incurable patient.The fact remains that in Holland around 1,000 people each year are killed by their doctors without these criteria being met. What is voluntary for some is assumed to be in the best interests of others. There is no reason to believe that a similar pattern would not rapidly develop here.
The answer to the suffering of the terminally ill is not to kill them but to care for them properly.
Yours faithfully,
JOHN SEARLE
Consultant Anaesthetist
Royal Devon and Exeter
Healthcare NHS Trust
Exeter
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments