Life support
Sir: If the Terminally Ill (End of Life) Bill is passed into law we will have crossed the Rubicon. As the second reading vote on 29 November approaches, it is astonishing that we are hearing less debate than on the loss of the winter fuel payment. There should be the mother of all debates. The issues surrounding assisted dying are immensely complicated and the arguments for and against are powerful. On the one hand it may shorten and ease a dreadful death and on the other it may put pressure on the dying and be deficient in its application.
However, the trite adage that hard cases make bad law has great weight, especially if the law is made too quickly and without the fullest informed consideration. I am against assisted dying not just because of my faith but the practical fear that government will mismanage its implementation. As your editorial (‘Death trap’, 16 November) identifies, the reach of its application could extend in the way we have seen in Canada and the Netherlands.
Plainly, care for the dying is not only answered in the question of whether we should legalise assisted dying. I believe that no debate should be completed nor decision taken until we have set in place a vastly improved system of palliative care and provided more support to extend the wonderful hospice movement.
Simon Chalwin
Shaftesbury, Dorset
Rebuilding the Church
Sir: William Moore gives an interesting analysis of what might happen in the Church of England following the resignation of Justin Welby (‘Canterbury fails’, 16 November). However, there are doubtless many parishioners who will feel that the John Smyth affair has finally crystallised the abject failure of Welby as leader of an institution important to society as a whole at a time of crisis.
Many of us looked to the Church for solace, guidance and support during the pandemic, only to see Welby disappear off to France to ‘reflect’, passing responsibility to Bishop Mullally for telling parishes what they may or may not do. The locked door to my own church had a multitude of messages from Mullally nailed to it. A close friend found it difficult to find a minister prepared to say a few words at the graveside as her father was buried.
I was prompted to write to the acting Bishop of Chester. I told him that I had been christened in a Bristol church as the German bombs were falling, devastating much of the city. His reply suggested that the Church was simply following government rules. I wondered if he had lately read his Bible.
At a Sunday service recently the minister remarked that, as beautiful as the building is, it is the congregation that makes a church what it is. She looked forward to a ‘rebuilding’ of the Church of England. Amen to that.
Dr Michael R. Dyer
Wilmslow, Cheshire
Small print
Sir: As always, I enjoyed Melissa Kite’s excellent column, but I disagree with her premise (Real life, 16 November). Printers are not evil, they are depressed. They remember their glory days as great machines the size of factories, churning out pages that would change human history: the King James Bible, Shakespeare’s first folio. Now a genetic line has evolved into these small cubes collecting dust under our desks, neglected until we demand it print our HMRC form or bland contract. No wonder they are eternally ‘buffering’.
Lauren Mappledoram
London N7
Power lines
Sir: Commentators speak as if there is something unusual or undemocratic in a figure such as Elon Musk being appointed to a position of power (‘Planet Elon’, 16 November). JFK appointed as defense secretary Robert McNamara who had worked for the Ford Motor Company; LBJ in turn ratified his appointment – all of which took place during the height of the Vietnam War.
Peter Glaze
Via email
Selling the farm
Sir: Simon Heffer gives plenty of reasons why Rachel Reeves’s tax reforms would be disastrous (‘Cross country’, 9 November). There is one area, however, which I have not seen sufficiently emphasised in any articles on the topic. I write as a farmer who long ago handed over my farm to the next generation, so I will not be affected – although they will be.
In 2007, when there were appalling floods, I was persuaded to install a flood management scheme on my farm to prevent flooding in the future for people in the neighbouring village – not for me. This involved creating 18 ponds and planting more than 20,000 trees. Unfortunately the following summer there was a drought, and half of the trees died. I was given a grant of £1.29 per tree to replant, which far from covered the cost. However, it was an easy decision to make for the long term. The scheme has worked, the village houses no longer flood; the trees are growing and will be enjoyed by the many walkers who visit every year.
I wonder, however, whether I would have planted all those trees if I had known that my children would have to sell the farm to pay the Reeves tax. I have a neighbour who refuses to plant trees which he won’t live to see. He’s 75, so there aren’t any oak trees on his land. Just imagine the countryside today if the old families hadn’t planted oak trees. Those of us who farm are no more than tenants with a full repairing lease. Rachel Reeves’s tax will destroy the countryside for everyone – not just for farmers.
David Astor
Milton-under-Wychwood, Oxon
Common ground
Sir: I imagine that Nicky Haslam is aghast to hear from Nadine Dorries that he has a ‘living room’ (Diary, 16 November).
Rhidian Llewellyn
London SW14
Comments