Letters to the Editor

ADVANCED SCIENCE

I must disagree with the view put forward by Deborah Annetts of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, in the recent article 'Testing Morality' (see [2003] Gazette, 27 February, 18), that the 'opinion formers' are coming round to the idea of assisted suicide.

Indeed, there is no evidence of any movement from an entrenched view of life at any and all costs.

I have been pressing quietly and persistently for some time for an open and informed debate about how and when decisions are taken to withdraw artificial hydration and nutrition from patients in a persistent vegetative state (PVS).

The decision in the case of Anthony Bland was made ten years ago that such patients could be allowed to die as a result of their underlying condition, and the House of Lords made recommendations for a full debate in Parliament on the subject and proposals for a local 'tribunal' system to deal with these situations efficiently, flexibly, and sympathetically.

I have been met with the response from the Department of Health that opinion in the country is still not ready for this, and a recent Bill from Baroness Knight of Collingtree again to outlaw withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration, which has already passed its first reading in the House of Lords, is hardly indicative of a new way of thinking.

Science is moving faster than the legal system, which is why a new medical decision-making local tribunal service is overdue, but in comparison to the legislature even the courts are showing lightning and enlightened reactions.

Paul Rumley, Withy King, Swindon

SERVICING NEEDS

I read with interest James Dillon's recent letter (see [2003] Gazette, 20 February, 16).

I also practise in an area recognised by the Legal Services Commission's (LSC) own assessment as having a high need for advice in social categories of debt, housing, welfare benefits, and employment.

Indeed, my own firm continues to hold contracts with the LSC in this regard.

I am a member of our local community legal services local strategic partnership, which has also identified these categories as being a high need and also as a need that is not currently being adequately met.

I am also chairman of the local Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB), which possesses a debt advice service.

As a result of political infighting at the funders, Norfolk County Council, the local CAB is having to consider redundancies and also the possible scrapping of its debt advice service.

Despite spending endless hours in discussions, the local Community Legal Service (CLS) partnership appears to be toothless and is unable to direct additional funds from any source to prevent an invaluable service from being lost.

And the LSC is unwilling to make any funds available to meet this service.

It seems senseless that where needs are being met by way of excellent quality advice provided on a cost effective basis at a local level, by way of a combination of the profit and not-for-profit sectors that the implementation of the legal aid reforms and the introduction of the CLS is allowing the quality of advice and levels of coverage of identified areas of need to be diminished.

Not only is the LSC and the CLS ignoring its own identified priorities, but it is also standing by and allowing the level of coverage to diminish.

The answer is not to divert funds from cancelled contracts to the voluntary sector, but to ensure that funds from all sources are properly directed on a local level to those best able to provide that advice and assistance, irrespective of whether that provider is within the profit or not-for-profit sector.

It is also imperative that such services are properly financed and remunerated.

Graham Cooper, Hawkins Solicitors, King's Lynn, Norfolk

FEELGOOD FACTOR

We are often told as solicitors to take a positive attitude towards complaints rather than be pedantic and evasive.

We should acknowledge our shortcomings as this will go some way towards appeasing the complainant.

I recently had to mention to a firm of solicitors in Northern Ireland that if I did not receive a response that I would reluctantly report the solicitors to their governing body.

The matter should have been dealt with in 2001, so I had been patient.

Their forthright and honest reply was refreshing.

'Our delay in this matter is unforgivable and we undertake to dispose of this matter now as quickly as possible.'

It made me feel better.

Peter Wade, Wayman & Long, Sudbury, Suffolk