It was entirely right to include a full review of the recent decision in Purdy v DPP (see [2009] Gazette, 20 August, 10). The Gazette's choice of Ms Purdy's solicitor Saimo Chahal as the author was no doubt reasonable. However, I was dismayed to find that Ms Chahal took the opportunity not only to reargue her client’s case, but also to introduce tendentious assertions in favour of a full change in the law.

Many will question the propriety of the law lords, in effect, a) requiring the DPP to issue guidance to anyone who intends to commit a criminal offence (aiding the suicide of another, in breach of section 2 of the Suicide Act 1961) on how to do so without risk of prosecution, and/or b) delegating to the DPP the amendment of primary legislation, by the practical decriminalisation of assisted suicide.

Ms Chahal claimed ringing support for Dignitas, but ignored the grave disquiet about that agency in this country exemplified in a Radio 4 investigation broadcast on 2 April 2009 and in Switzerland. She cited an announcement of neutrality on the issue by the Royal College of Nursing, based on a survey participated in by 0.3% of the RCN’s membership.

Private client practitioners are likely to be aware of the sense of burden and uselessness felt by some vulnerable individuals. We should be extremely wary of any change in the law which allows the taking of life as a convenience.William Cowan, Oxford