It is increasingly the case that columnists dogmatically rule out all consideration of religious beliefs before taking some highly contentious and arguable positions. Has the media been taken over by non-believers?

Such seems to be the case in Martin Scicluna’s heavily biased and totally irreligious article arguing strongly in favour of “assisted dying” (October 14).

He dogmatically tells us that “traditional religious beliefs should play no part in the debate on whether or not there should be a law on assisted dying”.

Is he arguing that religion and religious believers should be totally ignored by lawmakers?

The State may indeed be a secular entity but it does not – especially in a still predominantly Christian-thinking nation – exist in a vacuum.

If the people predominantly believe in a religion or practise it in some form, then the religious thinking of individuals and collectives on serious topics simply cannot be ignored in the legislative process.

Democracy by all means, but never one which totally ignores popular religious beliefs.

Scicluna says: “The heart of the debate centres on one question: to whom does a person’s life belong? Does it belong to the individual himself, or to the doctor keeping one alive?”

Questions to which believers have simple answers. Life belongs to neither the individual nor to the doctor keeping him alive. Life is, for us believers, God’s great loan to his greatest creation (i.e. man) and it is “Only He who giveth and only He who taketh”.

No individual person, no relative, no doctor, no whoever has the right to terminate human life. It is as simple as that.

I always shudder at the ignorance of youths who utter the inanity of “Isn’t life mine? Can’t I simply do with it as I want?” Again the simple answer: no.

It behoves all Christians to defend life at whatever its stage.