Feel strongly about these letters, or any other aspects of the news? Share your views by emailing us your Letter to the Editor at letters@scmp.com or filling in this Google form . Submissions should not exceed 400 words, and must include your full name and address, plus a phone number for verification. In most jurisdictions, the intentional termination of life by euthanasia is illegal. A good motive and consent are irrelevant. In a recent case in Hong Kong, a man was sentenced to 12 months’ probation for helping his wife with terminal lung cancer to end her life. The judge said that “any methods to take life away should be punishable”. A few years ago, the incurable patient Omid T challenged the blanket ban on assisted suicide in the United Kingdom. He criticised the law as being hypocritical for allowing euthanasia of animals but not humans. He chose to end his life by medically assisted suicide in Switzerland. This tragedy has increased support for legalising euthanasia in Britain. While it is easy for commentators to buttress the sanctity of life in the abstract, no one better understands the situation than the patients themselves. Euthanasia could be an escape from profound pain and suffering. It is inhumane to deny patients the right to choose to die with dignity. As Lord Neuberger, former president of the UK Supreme Court, said in 2014, there is “significantly more justification in assisting people to die if they have the prospect of living for many years a life that they regarded as valueless, miserable and often painful, than if they have only a few months left to live”. The burden of care is huge and the cost of prolonged medical treatment for the terminally ill is astronomical. It could be a huge relief for the ill, their family and society to allow incurable patients to make an end-of-life decision. This does not mean that social costs should override the wishes of the ill, but if medicine fails to meet the patient’s needs and the patient with clear consciousness makes an informed request for euthanasia after thorough consideration, there is no reason to deny them such an option. The current law on euthanasia in most places is cruel. We should not impose our will or religious values on others. One’s life includes one’s death. The legalisation of euthanasia would not devalue life. On the contrary, life would be devalued if one could not choose to do what one wanted with it. Dragon Lo Koon-kit, Sha Tin Small Claims Tribunal should catch up with 21st century I recently had occasion to file a claim with the Small Claims Tribunal. The last time I availed myself of this judicial service was in 1996; to my surprise, nothing except the location of the court office had changed. Despite 25 years of technological innovation, claims still had to be filed in person, the court form completed by hand (or by typewriter, as was helpfully suggested by the clerk) and filing of documents was only permitted by hand delivery, the post or fax. When I told the clerk that I had not used a fax machine for over 20 years, it was suggested that I could go to 7-Eleven, which could send a fax for me. Needless to say, I will bear that advice in mind for future faxing opportunities. While the Small Claims Tribunal is undoubtedly cheap and efficient for claimants to use, its administrative procedures are archaic; it does not even have a public email address. It seems to me that the judiciary urgently needs to modernise its administrative procedures and provide electronic filing and payment systems appropriate for the 21st century. The Small Claims Tribunal is the judicial interface most utilised by Hong Kong consumers and it’s high time to modernise its services. Anthony Williams, Tsim Sha Tsui Planners should have seen airport labour shortage coming Over the past months, as Hong Kong pursued a hermit-like zero-Covid isolation from the rest of the world, we were briefed by our leaders on how Hong Kong’s future as a leading aviation hub was assured, with the third runway and other expenditure on infrastructure. There has been an enormous amount of construction around the airport. Against this background, it is then extremely worrying to read in the Post that a shortage of labour may have a significant impact on the revival of Hong Kong’s aviation activity. This is not a new problem. Even a few years ago, there was already a significant labour shortage at the airport. And in 2022, as many countries reopened, we were able to observe the chaos that engulfed a number of major airports trying to handle both passengers and baggage, while Hong Kong remained closed. So you would think that the powers that be here in Hong Kong would have been giving some serious thought to the question of how to find the manpower our massive airport expansion is going to need. Furthermore, even with the current, much reduced passenger flow, I personally experienced standing in a 15-minute queue for taxis at 11.30pm after arriving back from Thailand. Yet the best on offer from the government seems to be that an airport manpower survey will be completed this quarter. Let’s give our officials the benefit of the doubt and say the study is completed this quarter; how long is it then going to take to make the changes needed to address this problem? My bet is on at least a year, during which Hong Kong’s aviation hub dreams will remain firmly on hold. Bob Rogers, Sai Kung