While I understand the opinion of Joyce Pickard concerning euthanasia (Letters, February 8), the intentional killing of the innocent is always wrong, even if the person agrees to be killed. Human life is too precious to be reduced to a disposable commodity.

While Joyce and others may feel that the hard cases which exist merit legalised euthanasia (and assisted suicide is, in reality, only giving permission to someone to kill someone legally), the reality is that hard cases make bad law.

Dr Nigel Sykes, medical director of St Christopher's Hospice, London, said the Bill to bring in assisted dying for the terminally ill was dangerous and would progress to being used for those with mental illness. All-out euthanasia will be an inevitable consequence whereby the old, the sick and the vulnerable will feel that they have to choose euthanasia or will be coerced into so doing.

Surely doctors and other health professionals enter the medical profession to heal and care for the sick, not to kill them?

Joyce mentions the safeguards that exist in Holland and Oregon. In the Netherlands, large numbers of vulnerable patients continue to be killed against their will.

Professor John Finnis, of Oxford University, studied the figures there and estimated that if Lord Joffe's Bill was passed, there would be 100,000 intentional killings each year, and tens of thousands of those deaths would not be voluntary.

Furthermore, Prof Finnis said that Dutch government experts asserted that it was "the patient who is now responsible in the Netherlands for avoiding termination of his life; if he does not wish to be killed by his doctor then he must state it clearly orally and in writing, well in advance". Where would that leave those among us who are unable to make our wishes known either orally in writing?

Karen Bruin,

St Martyns,

Easingwold Road,

Huby, York.

Updated: 10:46 Monday, February 13, 2006