Dear Mr. Pratchett or When the Meaning of Life is so sacrosanct that it is farcical

Dear Mr. Pratchett,

I would like to thank you for your Dimbleby Lecture. It was insightful, honest and, as always, humorous. I support your arguments and have done so for many years for many real, true reasons. I also do not feel that my position is in conflict with my dearly held Christian beliefs.

Exodus 20:13 is the root of the problem. It is regularly translated as "Thou shalt not kill." Such a nice simple phrase that is easy enough to understand that even those who are mildly mentally challenged can comprehend it. However, in the translators' zeal to make the Holy Word accessible, they failed in their duties.

The accurate translation was presented to me by a friend who was studying Hebrew back in 1987. Joe already held a degree in history when he began his studies at Seminary. He was shocked, even angered at the mistranslation. He told me that the correct words should be, "Thou shalt not commit murder" or even more accurately, "You should not take life unjustly."

Somehow this seems to make sense when you look at what follows. There are literally chapter after chapter of various crimes and social mores that if broken will find you being taken to a place to be stoned to death. Stoning obviously is a method of killing, and therefore, contradicts "Thou shalt not kill."

It would seem to me that killing someone unjustly, taking a life without due cause and concern, to remove life by violence or intent to harm, is far different from someone who rationally wishes to end their life.

I have seen life extended for no good reason other than to make those who would be "left behind" feel good. It is an emotional bandage that keeps their loved ones hostage to their failed, decrepit corps . I worked in what you called "Death's Waiting Room" and I saw and I learned.

One young man was horrendously brain damaged after resuscitation from his suicide. His parent's had found him and didn't want him to die. Is his alive? Does he really have life? Rather than deal with his death, his parents now must deal with his continued existence. He doesn't (didn't) know them and was unable to give them the love emotion they wanted. I wonder what will happen when they die and can no longer pay for his stay.

I have seen children resuscitated from death who have suffered massive brain damage. They have been saved because the parents, again, insisted and threatened with legal action. We regularly accuse doctors of playing God, yet is it the lawyers who are doing this?

I am now watching my mother die the very same horrendous death you wish to avoid. I wish she could have had the death you will have. She deserved that. Everyone does.

Yes, Stephen Hawking isn't ready to die. He is, rightly, allowed to do whatever he sees fit to continue his life. If we are going to allow people to live who would normally die due to disease by the application of scientific method, then we should equally allow people to end their mortal existence by using the same means. If we can't discriminate against colour, religion, sex or gender, then why can we do so when it comes to terminal illness and death?

I believe that God, Our Father, wants us to have full, meaningful lives. He doesn't want us to live in pain. He doesn't like us to suffer. He has given us the information, knowledge and method to stop disease. He has also given us a mind to know when it is time to join Him. If you are terminal, then all you are waiting for is the machine that is called your body to stop working.

I thank you for speaking out. You are not alone in your beliefs and your desires. If life is meant to have real, dignified meaning, then death must also have a real, dignified meaning. I am unable to present it better than you did. Your eloquence will be deeply missed when you take your brandy cocktail with a side of Thomas Tallis.

Looking forward to your next book.
Yours sincerely,
K.