THANK you for publishing my letter recently on the Mental Capacity Bill. I was anxious to establish how our MPs would vote on this bill and to encourage people to write to them, asking them to vote for amendments that would prevent the legalisation of the abuse and killing of patients in our hospitals.

There are undoubtedly sections of the bill that would guarantee greater protection to people with mental incapacity and our MPs should certainly support this. However I regret to say that when amendments were tabled that would have addressed the above concerns and prevented the introduction of euthanasia by omission, both Mr Watts and Mr Woodward voted against each amendment.

The bill was then debated in the House of Lords on January 10 and genuinely caring people should be made aware of sections of the bill that need to be changed.

For example the bill includes a clause, which it is claimed makes 'living wills' legally binding. However, the bill makes legally binding only those 'living wills' that refuse 'treatment'-and how many people are aware that 'treatment' in the bill includes assisted food and fluid. Thus anybody refusing treatment could be starved and dehydrated to death.

On the other hand a 'living will' in which a person insists that he or she wishes to have food and fluids (unless it would be burdensome) is NOT legally binding and still allows doctors to withdraw nourishment and hydration, ending the patient's life in a singularly cruel way.

How can this be described as a 'bill of choice' when the only choice offered is death?

Maria Overend (address supplied)