Religion should have no place in the assisted dying bill

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

‘Everybody should have the right to choose how and when they want to leave this world’ ((Alamy/PA))

Once again, the religious sections of the country come together to oppose what the vast majority of citizens feel should be allowed to happen with respect to the assisted dying bill (“Why we can’t (and shouldn’t) separate God from the argument over assisted dying,” Tuesday 26 November).

It’s a repeat of the opposition to reducing the age of consent and allowing same-sex marriage. In both cases, people protested that young children would be groomed or that their own marriages would be diminished. Neither happened, at least not by reducing the age of consent or by allowing other people to marry.

Now, we have the “slippery slope” of people being abused and cajoled into volunteering to die. What utter claptrap. Everybody should have the right to choose how and when they want to leave this world should illness or disease make their lives insufferable.

Personally, I hope I die quietly in my sleep at home, but should fate decide I am to suffer towards the end of my life I demand to go as and when I choose, and not be in distress because of someone else’s decision.

Ken Twiss

Yarm

The last thing we need is another referendum

Dr Anthony Ingleton (“Letters”, Wednesday 27 November) thinks a referendum on assisted dying would be a good idea. A referendum on it is the last thing we need to find a solution to a highly complex, nuanced question. We had one on Brexit, another issue with complex political, social and global issues and repercussions. That turned out well, didn’t it?

MPs, who under our political system make the law, are representatives, not delegates. They are elected to use their judgment to make law, not just to parrot what constituents tell them. Given the number of constituents they each have, that’s nonsense anyway. So, let them debate and decide.

I have been impressed and learned a lot from listening to MPs on this issue, realising that in life most issues do not have simple answers, and referendums are too one-dimensional to solve complex problems.

John Daintith

Chew Magna

Spiking laws are a start, but we need to do more

We welcome the government’s announcement that drink spiking will be made a specific criminal offence: a clear signal that this kind of behaviour has no place in our society (”Drink spiking to be made criminal offence as Starmer pledges crackdown on violence against women,” Monday 25 November). But while this is a step forward, it’s just one piece of the puzzle. To reach the government’s manifesto commitment to halve violence against women and girls over the next 10 years, we need a broader, more holistic approach.

Many girls have told us that fear of violence and harassment is part of their daily lives. Plan International UK’s State of Girls’ Rights in the UK 2024 report revealed that 95 per cent of girls in the UK do not feel completely safe in public spaces, while one in three have experienced physical or sexual violence. To truly turn the tide on violence against women and girls, we need sustained and joined-up action. We must see girls’ rights and gender equality prioritised across every corner of the government through a cross-departmental approach where ministers are held accountable.

But we must also look further upstream. If the government is serious about halving violence against women and girls, we need comprehensive sex, health and relationships education in schools to challenge harmful attitudes and foster respect amongst all young people.

Girls and young women deserve to walk around in public, enjoy nights out and be online without fear of facing gender-based violence. With a growing anti-rights movement threatening to roll back hard-won freedoms, transforming our society so that women and girls feel safe and free from harm has never been more important. Spiking laws are a good start, but we can’t stop there.

Amelia Whitworth

Plan International UK

London

Businesses must get a grip on employee wellbeing

Skyrocketing workplace sickness demands urgent action, therefore the government’s “Get Britain working” plan (“Those who can work, must work, says Kendall in welfare overhaul announcement”, Tuesday 26 November) is welcome. However, government action must be taken in tandem with employers taking greater responsibility for keeping people in the workforce. Just as it “takes a village to raise a child”, ensuring staff are healthy, engaged, and productive – both physically and emotionally – requires a concerted, organisation-wide effort.

However, to implement that, businesses must first ask if they are fully aware of why their staff are absent or not performing. Understanding these issues must go beyond the immediate circle of line managers and colleagues and extend to every level of the business. The organisational infrastructure must be cohesive. For instance, is HR training their managers to conduct constructive and productive return-to-work meetings, exit interviews, and regular one-to-one check-ins?

Too many organisations remain in blissful ignorance when it comes to employee wellbeing. If businesses don’t step up now, the cost of inaction will only grow in both human and financial terms. Let’s hope the prime minister’s call to action sparks a real behavioural shift across workplaces.

Karl Bennett

Wellbeing director at Perkbox Vivup and chair of the Employee Assistance Professionals Association

London

Election petition is not worth the paper it’s written on

Much as I agree with the sentiment of the recent petition for the government to call a general election, I cannot in good conscience sign it.

As has been pointed out by other commentators, we live in a parliamentary democracy. The public made its choice on 4 July. There is a variety of mechanisms whereby a government can be forced to go back to the people, but this is not one of them.

Had the petition merely condemned the government in the strongest possible terms for rowing back on its manifesto promises, I would have signed it in an instant, as would millions of others no doubt. As it is, I will not sign it. The petition is a sincere but misguided attempt to subvert democracy. It is also a missed opportunity.

Ewan McLeish

Marlow

Ground floor concern

James Moore is quite right, of course. Building on flood plains starts as soon as the last one recedes (“As Storm Bert costs mount, Labour must get serious about flood-proofing homes,” Monday 25 November).

But why isn’t it mandatory that no one lives on the ground floor anymore – just put your car there? That would even things up against the named storms, wouldn’t it?

Richard Parry

Cumbria