Sir, - Charles Acton's extraordinary personal attack on me (April 19th) displays an ignorant presumption bordering on the defamatory with regard to my medical training, position and practice. It is a smokescreen behind which he avoids addressing the issues of euthanasia and the public claims and posturings of Dr Patrick Leahy regarding "mercy killing". A substantive contribution to a serious debate might have been expected from ban experienced critic even if music was his forte. I am in no position to comment on his claim that thousands of actual patients regard Dr Leahy as a saint but such species are thin on the ground in medicine because authenticated miracles are hard to come by.
Mr Acton seems unable to find any inaccuracy in my article of April 11th. Any literate member of the public would have no difficulty in interpreting the clear statements and reasoning of the House of Lords Select Committee on euthanasia. Similarly the papers published by the British Medical Journal on euthanasia in the Netherlands are free of medical jargon and are all the more shocking for that. Simplicity is the essence of good communication with the tonic solfa replacing quavers and crotchets. I have stood for election in the constituency in which I live which includes areas of Finglas and Ballymun where unemployment and the consequent problems of poverty are endemic. Only an unfeeling ogre could fail to be affected by the problems experienced by many families in my home area. Teams of nurses and doctors from the Hospice as well as local GPs (of which my wife is one) play an important role in the care of the terminally ill in this and other communities and we in Beaumont Hospital are fortunate to have palliative care and pain specialists on the staff. I am by no means complacent concerning the adequacy of services for cancer patients as there is an urgent need for the appointment of oncologists to Beaumont and Blanchardstown Hospitals. That is the responsibility of the Department of Health.
Ms Brevik (April 18th) misunderstands the point which I was synopsising from the House of Lords 1994 Select Committee Report which was that in the event of euthanasia being made legal, many old people and those who perceive themselves to be a burden on their families or on society due to illness or handicap might opt for a premature end to their lives in the mistaken impression that they were doing their duty to others. Clearly cultural factors would be important in the individual but many would doubtlessly feel under psychological duress to request euthanasia. Doctors must try to relieve misery, fear and pain using the appropriate therapy but only with the consent of the patient. The imposition of a futile existence without consent is unethical. I never suggested the contrary. - Yours, etc.,
Glasnevin Avenue,
Dublin 11.