Thanks to Tom Riddles for his letter,( Letterbox, June 13) in which he seems to criticise my letter (June 6).
Yes Tom, I do understand why supporters of mercy killing think as they do,but changing the law isn’t the answer.
Secondly,euthanasia isn’t “the thin end of the wedge” ( I didn’t use that phrase on 6 June).The wedge started to be hammered home back in 1967,when David Steele, with the best of intentions, introduced the abortion act, which was to stop women dying at backstreet abortionists, or in a rare case where the life of the mother was in danger or if the baby was handicapped in some way.
Now less than 4 per cent of abortions are performed for these reasons.
Abortion on demand was never part of the original act.
Tom says women have the right to do as they see fit with their own bodies.I agree with him, but if she becomes pregnant, the rights of that unborn child have to be taken into account.
The main concern of assisted suicide supporters seems to be what will happen to the person giving the assistance after their death. Tom points out suicide isn’t a crime. He wrote last week: “I believe it is for me to decide when life is unbearable that I can finish it”. So if he or any supporters of euthanasia are unfortunate enough to develop an incurable condition or a terminal illness, they are quite at liberty to take their own lives before they reach the point where they need assistance.
Tom, on your own admission, you already have the choice of when to die, you don’t need to involve a second person, so why change the law giving you choice, whilst protecting me from being coerced into an early death?
New North Road