Sir, In expressing his views on euthanasia, your regular columnist Christopher Gray describes the concept of the immortal soul as 'superstitious tosh'. Thus in a sentence he refutes centuries of ancient wisdom and all the authentic religions of the world.

But there is nothing superstitious in this concept. On the contrary, it is one that is common sense to anyone who thinks carefully about what s/he is, and whether s/he is after all any more than the bundle of bones, flesh and skin which make up all human bodies. I would refer Mr Gray to the philosophers, in particular Plato, who with calm reason proves many times that the soul exists as a motive force governing our lives in the physical realm. But Mr Gray is right that the euthanasia argument turns on this idea. If we were to consider the possibility of a soul which is ours, yet not physical, then, though it may not be immortal, there is no reason why it should die with the physical body. What then would it experience after the physical death? No one can answer this with certainty, but it is this very mystery, this possibility of an incomprehensible form of life after death, that means we would be highly unwise to seek to terminate our physical lives because of physical pain.

What we may be entering could be far worse than anything here, and if so no firmly-held view to the contrary will prevent it, whatever it may be.

Furthermore, the many examples of recovery from apparently hopeless illnesses, and the testimonies of these people, show me how important it is that we uphold the sanctity of life, and turn away from a culture of death.

Ken Weavers, Oxford