DENIS GILL, MB,
Madam, - The act and intent of a doctor administering to a patient a potent opiate injection, whose primary objective is to relieve pain, in the knowledge that it may suppress breathing as a secondary effect, is quite different from that of a doctor giving an opiate injection whose primary purpose is to stop breathing.
The dose and determinants in these scenarios are usually different, though on occasion they may be similar. One doctor is trying to ease the dying process (normal medical practice), the other to cause death. - Yours, etc.,
DENIS GILL, MB, Tivoli Close, Dun Laoghaire, Co Dublin.
... ... * ... * ... * ... ...
Madam, - Your Editorial of October 8th claims "the protection of the patient (in Belgium and the Netherlands) is enhanced by the requirement for a second doctor's consent".
May I point out that in Britain a second doctor's consent is required in the case of abortion? All the evidence points to its ineffectiveness in preventing abortion on the flimsiest of grounds so that "safeguard" will not prevent the killing of patients.
However, as Father McCarthy points out (October 9th) your argument on double effect does not hold up either.
It is tempting to conclude that the Editorial was, in effect, critical of the Bishops' letter on dying because it emanated from the Catholic Bishops. Can this be so? - Yours, etc.,
Mrs MARY STEWART, Ardeskin, Donegal Town.