In his article ‘Last human right’ (August 10), Martin Scicluna makes his case for mercy killing, or euthanasia. He says that: “Patients have the right to life. But they also have the right to personal autonomy and dignity”. Which is a highly erratic statement.

Humans (and that includes patients) have both a right and a duty to life and, faced with a clear choice between life and personal autonomy and dignity, it is the latter that should always give way. Why? The answer lies in the answer to a key question he puts: “The heart of the debate centres on one question: to whom does a person’s life belong? Does it belong to the individual or to the doctor keeping him alive?”

For us who unashamedly declare ourselves believers the answer is indeed very simple. To neither of them. Life is the property of God who has deigned to lend it to us and for which we shoulder a huge great responsibility: to be lived as fully, as actively and as healthily as possible.

It must be protected at all stages by both the individuals concerned and also those whose responsibility and duty it is to care for them. This must be done in all situations.

Put simply, nobody has any right to decide when to give or when to take away life. The issues of “personal autonomy” and “dignity” simply do not come into the argument at all. I am not saying these are not important but that they take a definite second place within the context of the question: who is the owner of life.

Of course, this is purely a believer’s position. Non-believers are free to argue differently. But when publicly stating their position on this topic, such people should openly declare whether they are believers or not, Christians or not.