"The current law exists to protect the terminally ill, disabled people and the vulnerable from feeling pressure, real or perceived from ending their lives as we often see in those places that made this change," he said.
Concerns about coercion and discrimination against the elderly, the disabled, and the mentally ill are common among opponents of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
Macdonald noted that in the states of Oregon and Washington, where assisted suicide is legal, terminally ill patients who choose to die often cite fears of being a "burden" on family or caretakers as the reason for their decision.
He also noted that cancer patients or others with serious illnesses in these states have been "refused potentially life-saving and life-extending treatments, while being offered the poison to kill themselves."
Macdonald also noted that in Canada, which legalized euthanasia and assisted suicide in 2016, promises of improved palliative care have "not materialized" and any safeguarding measures originally put in place have already been removed. In the Netherlands and Belgium, such laws have expanded to allow non-mentally competent adults and "even children" to choose euthanasia or assisted suicide, he added.
"This is why Parliamentarians across the UK have repeatedly rejected attempts to introduce assisted suicide and euthanasia, more than ten times since 2003, out of concern for public safety, including in 2015 when the House of Commons overwhelmingly voted against any change in the law by 330 votes to 118," he noted.
"It also explains why not a single doctors group or major disability rights organization supports changing the law, including the British Medical Association, the Royal College of General Practitioners, the Royal College of Physicians, the British Geriatric Society and the Association for Palliative Medicine. Our current law does not need changing."
Simone Pillon, an Italian legislator, told The Telegraph that human life is "sacred and inviolable" and that the ruling would "weigh on (the judges') consciences for life."
A Catholic association of doctors told The Telegraph that they would not comply with the new ruling.