• PASTOR Andrew Murray of the Hope Community Church offers thoughtful and sincere opposition to legalising assisted dying; his grounds are both religious and secular, (Beware the effects of ‘assisted dying’ legislation, October 25).

The religious ground, life as a divine “gift”, lacks attraction, of course, for the non-religious.

Even if a gift, it was unsought and apparently has strings attached such that when life is worn out and suffering we should hang on in so as not to offend God. Why?

The secular grounds have wider appeal, not least because they manifest compassion.

They are, though, one-sided, focusing on how some individuals, keen to live on, could sense intolerable pressures from family or doctors to request assisted dying.

The temporarily forgotten other side of the argument highlights those who now want to die as decently as possible, need assistance, yet know that no one legally can help.

They face months, even years, of suffering, unwanted dependence on others, indignity and frustration. Which compassion carries greater weight?

Compassion for those who might feel under pressure to opt for assisted dying or compassion for those who have had enough of life and want to die?

Surely it is compassion for those who want to die.

Currently, the law stops them from getting what they want whereas if assisted dying is legalised the law is not preventing those who want to live from continuing to live.

Further, with no assisted dying legalised in this country, the vulnerable and poor suffer unjustified discrimination.

Those with the wherewithal and awareness make use of Switzerland’s Dignitas, though true a poor substitute for the preferred assisted dying in familiar surroundings of home and friends.

Those with the physical ability may legally attempt suicide, very much a second-best given the horrors of botched jobs and distress to those who find them.

One unhappy curiosity – I am sure this does not apply to Andrew Murray’s stance – is that many people, strongly opposed to assisted dying, accept the death of thousands as “collateral damage” in war.

That is, they oppose killing people who actively want to die yet somewhat casually accept the killing of people who neither want to die nor deserve to die.

PETER CAVE, W1