Readers’ letters - Wednesday, November 30

A reader asks: Do we care more about our pets than people?

A reader asks: Do we care more about our pets than people?

0
Have your say

After all, whose life is it anyway?

Blaise Tapp’s article urges us to ask ourselves whether “we care about Rover or Tibbles more than we do about Great Aunt Doris?” (LEP November 23)?

When Rover and Tibbles are suffering beyond endurance, our kindness extends to putting them out of their misery by ending their lives.

This is a kindness that we do not extend to people.

I contend that, as long as people are able to make a rational decision, they too should have the right to determine whether they wish to continue with a life that, to them, is no longer welcome or tolerable.

It seems to me to be iniquitous that a person’s miserable life should be lengthened simply because medicine makes it possible to do so.

If cruelty to animals is condemned, then why is such cruelty to people required?

Obviously, this is a decision that can only be taken by the patient: I am not naïve enough to believe that it can be safely left to anyone else.

However, while we are still able to make informed decisions, we should each have the right to set the limits to the extent of deterioration that we find acceptable.

In my own case, I have lodged a “living will” with my doctor which clearly states the circumstances under which I wish to be allowed to die.

I also carry with me a document that forbids resuscitation.

This form can be obtained from your doctor and places your name on a register to which the ambulance service must refer.

If necessary, I want, indeed demand, the right to terminate my own life.

I do not seek for anyone else to do this for me, least of all my family who I adore, but my own concept of Hell is to be totally dependant and to be kept alive contrary to my clearly expressed wishes.

If you disagree with my point of view, that’s fine.

You go your way and I’ll go mine.

After all, whose life is it anyway?

David Neal

via email

Shoppers will leave our city

Further to the LEP’s front page, Drivers fined £½m in a week, I take issue with the opening paragraph wherein you state: “More than 8,000 fines worth up to £500,000 have been issued to drivers flouting the new Fishergate rules” ... how can you ‘flout something’ when you have no idea it exists (LEP November 26)?!

The article on page 9 gives a more accurate headline, “Thousands of motorists stung with £60 penalties in city centre’ – emphasis on stung! I am consumed with a sense of injustice and righteous indignation at being fined for driving down Fishergate.

I was incredulous and distressed when I received a fixed penalty.

Rather than making drivers aware by clear, warning signage when exiting the carpark, indicating a change of priority on Fishergate, I just took a route that I have been taking for years after parking in the St George’s car park.

This Saturday (November 26), there were workmen in bright yellow attire re-directing traffic as they innocently attempted to exit the town centre as I had done, but when I received my fine, there was no such courtesy. This, to my mind, acknowledges there exists a major problem with signage and the reason I feel the unjust fines should be refunded.

The whole situation of attempting to access Preston town centre now is beyond ridiculous, the traffic congestion is chaotic and if the council is actually trying to ‘drive’ people away, without doubt, this will achieve it resulting in a further lack of revenue when the public choose to shop elsewhere.

Marilyn Cooksey

Preston

Demise of Fishergate

An Open Letter to LCC Highways Directorate

I was born in Preston and I have lived in the area all my life.

I am used to inexplicable road closures, re-routing, cul-de-sacs, traffic flow-impeding pedestrian island res-ervations where there are no pedestrians (North Road – Frank Street), and the bemused faces of friends who visit a city where the Ring Road is routed through the city centre.

The changes to Fishergate, however, are quite beyond a joke and my engineer’s mind fails to identify a logical, inclusive, rationale to qualify the new system. So much for a Shared Space! Severely Restricted Space would be more apposite.

We frequently shop in Preston where we use St George’s car park which is ideally located for the stores we use and is very convenient for my Blue Badge qualifying wife.

After lunch and shopping, we usually traverse Fishergate to visit either our daughter or our son, both of whom live off Fishergate Hill.

To reach them now will entail a journey which, apart from being utterly illogical, will be an abomination to climate change campaigners.

If this farce continues, we are free to go elsewhere, but that is a choice which is not available to the residents of Penwortham and beyond, who work in and around Fishergate.

I leave the following point for consideration by the architects of this insane system: Sir Philip Green is responsible for the failure of only one store on Fishergate whereas they, in one fell swoop, have virtually guaranteed the demise of Fishergate as a shopping centre.

Preston cannot afford to wait six months for a review by these selfish idealists.

AGJ McManmon

Garstang

Cost of traffic measures?

How many measures are needed to direct traffic down Chapel Street?

Friday lunch time and there are two permanent signs, one large temporary yellow sign held down by sandbags and six men in high vis jackets.

In the Olden Days, one policeman could do this job.

More recently, dare I suggest, traffic lights did the job.

LCC says, “What problem? There is no problem”.

So why all these extra measures and at what cost to who?

Coun Christine Abram

Lea Ward