Report comment

I abhor the simplistic way these cases are presented by campaigners and the media as "right to die" cases, when the reality is that they are about the "right to kill" with no legal consequences.

The appropriate way to deal with this issue is through Parliament, certainly not through the courts, or by clandestine trips to Switzerland. However, I would oppose any attempt at passing "licensed to kill" legislation until we know considerably more about the human condition than we know today.

This is not through any religious or moral pre-conception - as a lawyer, and seeker of the truth, I have seldom been burdened by either. But, I would not trust civil servants, including social workers, doctors and judges, or my fellow lawyers, to have the power of life and death over people in the throes of depression and despair, who are often (as the Dutch experience has illustrated) prone to undue influence of relatives keen to jettison a burden - or just to inherit.

Frankly, if a "right to kill" law were passed into statute, particularly in these days of organ-harvesting, I would be terrified to go into hospital without a trusted family member whose inheritance depended on guarding the "off switch". After all, every now and again someone suffering from a so-called "terminal illness" can start to recover and go on to live a healthy life - either due to mis-diagnosis or just "a miracle".

I know this will offend those of you who seek a tidy solution to other people's pain and suffering. But, until we know A LOT MORE than we know today, and we are far more angelic than we pretend to be, I prefer to believe that where there is life, there is hope!