I find myself compelled to write in reply chiefly to Elaine Hampton's, and to a lesser extent John Haakma's, comment (Chronicle, August 31) on what is, and likely always will be, an emotive subject, the assisted suicide of a loved one.
Elaine Hampton appears to dispute that life is sacred, and that we should be able to depart this mortal coil when and if the pain of whatever ailment we are suffering from, albeit terminal, becomes too great, but all the while being of "sound mind". She then goes on to blame all the people who dare to have either conservative or religious beliefs on the matter, while at the same time informing us that we humans have been relieving pain since Pre-Roman times, as if to say that offing oneself as the ultimate pain relief is somehow acceptable.
What both Elaine Hampton and, to a lesser extent, John Haakma have seemingly failed to recognise or take into account is that, while death is the end of this stage of our existence, every religion known to man tells us that there is life after death, and that offing oneself doesn't herald a warm reception when we arrive, wherever it is we believe we are going.
As for we who hold religious beliefs opposing wars, our armies are full of people from many different faiths, as were the trenches. What I find most interesting about this whole debate is the constant hand-wringing being done in Parliament and our various health organisations over the steadily increasing suicide rate in this country, yet at the same time we are debating the moral legality of offing our old and terminally ill.
ROD ANDERSON
Whanganui
