Sir — This refers to the editorial, “Matters of life, death” (March 12). The Supreme Court’s legalisation of ‘passive euthanasia’ to facilitate ‘death with dignity’ or ‘good death’, which is what the Greek word ‘euthanasia’ literally means, is underlain by the false premise that ‘dying with dignity’ is preferable to ‘living without dignity’. Implicit in it is the unacceptable exaltation of ‘dignity’ to the status of the determinant of whether life is worth living or not.
The practice of intentionally ending someone’s life to relieve their pain and suffering is unjustifiable and unacceptable. As an ideal, ‘dying with dignity’ is unexceptionable. But it is not to be achieved by stopping medical treatment or unplugging life-support systems. A physician’s role is to save lives and not to lead patients through the ‘dark tunnel’ into the unknown. It is a fallacy to say that the right to die resides in the right to privacy. Euthanasia is a slippery slope; it is more about caretakers than patients and forces the vulnerable people — the elderly, lonely sick or distressed — regard themselves as a burden to others. Remember that human nature beneath the exterior can be treacherous when it comes to the wrestling between selfishness and altruism.