To The Independent
Assisted dying has been having quite a lot of coverage lately. The Belgians are being fair to children, offering them an escape from a horrible death.
In my first marriage I had two sons who were born, arguably, into a permanent vegetative state. Neither had any senses or was ever able to hold the weight of his head, the first sign of development.
Before modern medicine they would not have suffered long. My gut feeling at the time was that they should be allowed to die, despite their total inability to make the decision for themselves. My eldest son John’s tortured existence lasted for 23 years at huge financial cost to the country. He has been dead for around ten years now, and a long time before his death I was informed that his round-the-clock care was costing more than £100,000 a year.
Under such circumstances, in the interests of humanity, would it not be wise to allow assisted dying when parents, medics and a judge agree that, in the interests of the child, this is the correct course of action? There are many humane causes where the money could be better spent. (Peter John Sipthorp, Gloucestershire, England)
Epicurus would probably agree with the writer on the basis that our short lives should be lived in happiness (or as much happiness as is possible) and that severe disability in small children offers neither the child nor the extended family anything but agony and despair. Sensible doctors, I’m sure, agree. But a mixture of religious dogma and the desire for making money out of a bad situation has created (in America) the disagreeable and pervasive culture of defensive medicine, often at the expense of the sick and their families. Why don’t people have more common sense? (Daft question!)