The death in July this year of 108 year old Alice Knight, who went on hunger strike after being forced out of her care home in Norfolk, has brought into sharp focus the fate that may await the residents in any care home that is earmarked for closure.

There is no doubt that there is a link between closing a care home, where residents are old, frail and demented and a significant shortening of the life expectation of those people. Statistics which are commonly quoted are that one in four of those who move die within a few months. That statistic certainly sympathetic with the case of the transfer of 31 people from Napsbury Hospital in Barnet in 1997. Seven people died within 21 days. An eighth person died a few days later (Ref. Report of the Review Panel ISBN No 0 9522196 8 9). The Review Panel found, inter-alia, that there was a link between the deaths and the fact that the people who died were elderly, extremely frail and had severe dementia

The General Assembly of the Church of Scotland is aware of the effect that closure can have on the elderly, frail and demented people who are forced out of their home. Ross Vettraino, whose 93 year old mother has lived in Leslie House for 15 years, petitioned the General Assembly in May this year. He asked the Assembly to postpone the closure of Leslie House until the well being of the residents was secured. His Petition was rejected.

In moving that Mr. Vettraino's Petiton be rejected, the Rev. Hugh Conky of Newtonhill parish in Kincarden and Deeside said: "Mr Vettraino is quite right. When elderly people are moved from one old folks home to another, a percentage die within a short period of time. That is a fact which I am sure that the Professional Officers and Members of the Board are only too well aware of." As a consequence of what he said, Mr. Conky, when moving that Mr. Vettraino's Petition be rejected, was moving that a percentage of the residents in Leslie House suffer a shortened life span. Moreover, when the Assembly accepted Mr. Conky's motion, the Assembly did so in the clear understanding of the consequence of so doing..

The Board of Social responsibility seeks to take refuge in the fact that the General Assembly of the Church agreed to reject Mr. Vettraino's Petition.. So, too, do the Presbyteries, none of whom, so far, are able to support the Leslie House 21 Group. (The Group wrote to all 48 Presbyteries seeking support. About 10 have replied saying that they had to abide by the decision of the General Assembly, as the Assembly is the highest Court of the Church.)

The Board and the Presbyteries would do well to remember Mr. Conky's words and that the General Assembly rejected the Petition on the understanding, according to what the mover said, that people would suffer a shortened life span as a result.

In terms of Article 2 of the European Convention of Human Rights, every one has an absolute right to life. In terms of the Human Rights Act 2000, if the Church of Scotland is a Public Authority (and that may still have to be determined in the Court of Session) it would have an absolute duty to protect that right to life, in which case the decision of the General Assembly would be legally incompetent.

Whether or not the Church is a public authority is really irrelevant. The Church, as a Christian church, has an absolute moral duty to protect the right to life (Fifth Commandment - Thou shalt not kill). It would seem therefore, that, either way, the Church was in dereliction of its moral duty, when it agreed that Leslie House should close

In the case of Leslie House, it is easy to forget the real situation and say that the Church is closing Leslie House. The truth is that that is not the case. The "Church" is its members and the faith that they share. It is not, therefore, the Church that is seeking to close Leslie House, but one of its administrative arms, viz. the Board of Social Responsibility.

The members of the Church of Scotland, who, by their unstinting and continuous giving make it possible for the Board to function, would want to protect the rights and needs of people in care. The Leslie House 21 Group does not know of one lay member of the Church who believes that the Board is doing the right thing. The reason is simple. The people, who are the Church, do care. They believe that the right to life should be protected.

The European Convention of Human Rights, Article 8, also gives people the right to a home, the right to family life and the right to relationships. The residents in Leslie House would be deprived of these rights, too, if the Board of Social Responsibility gets its way and closes Leslie House.

The Board of Social Responsibility constantly says that it cannot afford to keep Leslie House open. This issue has nothing to do with money. It is about the legal and moral duties of the Board of Social Responsibility, as it administers the Church's care function on behalf of the Church members, none of whom wish to see Leslie House close and all of whom want to protect the rights of individuals.

Incidental to the real issue, it is the case, because there are now 15 empty rooms in Leslie House, the Board of Social Responsibility is incurring a loss in income of over £230,00 (£310 per week per room) per annum. (The £230,000 would be reduced by the cost of employing additional staff.) The members of the church will have to find that extra money in addition to the £160,000 per annum of a loss that the Board predicted would occur if Leslie House was kept open. (It is assumed that the £160,000 loss was on the basis of the home being full. If it wasn't then the anticipated loss was not being truthfully presented by the Board.)