Dr Lucy Thomas says Charles Falconer’s assertion that the type of legislation he is proposing is ‘safe’ does not make it so; plus five other readers respond on questions of palliative care and Kim Leadbeater’s private member’s bill

If Lord Falconer’s aim (Letters, 4 October) is to develop a safe and compassionate assisted dying law he should want to understand and address, rather than dismiss, the serious concerns raised by people like me who work with terminally ill patients on a daily basis and who he expects to enact his legislation (I see the worrying consequences of assisted dying in other countries. Britain’s bill needs a radical rethink, 2 October). He should also be actively seeking to learn from, rather than ignore, what is not working well in other countries.

Lord Falconer believes there is a fundamental difference between feeling suicidal and wanting a medically assisted death. However, it is absurd to claim that just because someone has a terminal illness they cannot, apparently by definition, be suicidal. On the basis of this claim, he would require doctors to treat a patient saying they want to end their life in a radically different way just because they have a terminal illness. This is not “person-centred” and does not represent “choice” – and has prevented serious deliberation about what would warrant assisting someone to end their life rather than trying to prevent suicide.