Meeting of the Parliament 27 May 2015
I speak in support of the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill. I welcome and respect that the debate will invoke passion, reason and arguments based on ethics, morality and religion.
When talking about death, we must remember that each person treats death differently through a wide range of emotions and feelings such as, but not limited to, fear, reluctance and, importantly, acceptance. To be diagnosed with a life-changing illness leads one to accept that death is not a choice, but a reality, and how one faces death can make a difference.
Even with the greatest palliative care, an illness can still make life insufferable for some. Legislating for assisted suicide is a matter of not only choice and dignity for those wishing to use the powers, but equality.
Exercising the power to ask a doctor for the option to seek assistance to end suffering, where medicine and care cannot, places an enormous level of trust with the practitioner and would give the recipient control of their own destiny.
The level of and access to care will always be paramount to easing pain while medical advances are researched, and that should not suffer as a result of legislating for assisted suicide. There is no evidence to suggest that allowing assisted suicide would be a detriment to access to palliative care.
I support Patrick Harvie’s point in his response to the stage 1 report that he is
“open to proposals to amend the Bill”
and will work with
“those which seek to strengthen it or to improve definitions without being too prescriptive.”
With that in mind, the only way to have that further input is to agree to the bill at stage 1. The principles of and motive for the bill are clear, yet there is always room for improvement with any proposed legislation.
I move on to the specifics of the bill. Part 1 would remove the possibility of a person facing charges of criminality after assisting in the compassionate suicide of another. It is important to understand the distinction between assisted suicide and euthanasia. There are massive differences between what is proposed and euthanasia, so for anyone to equate the two, as has happened throughout the wider discussion and consultation, is an unfair disservice to those who are suffering and who wish to end their life.
I note, however, that the Health and Sport Committee report showed that further clarification of the difference is needed, because of what Stephen McGowan from the Crown Office called a fine line. I hope that we can take the bill to stage 2 so that we can further distinguish the terms “assisted suicide” and “euthanasia”.
Part 2 deals with safeguards, which is where members have the greatest reservations. For some, there can be no assurances that the safeguards are as strong as they would like, which is why it is important that the debate continues. The criteria for considering assisted suicide are pertinent to the proposed safeguards. I have read in communication from constituents that they are worried that children might be exposed to assisted suicide. That is contradictory to what the bill sets out to secure, which is a right for adults who are over 16 years of age with a diagnosis of an illness or progressive condition that is terminal or life-limiting and which will reduce life quality, without any sign of improvement. I believe that the bill contains comprehensive measures to protect those who wish assisted suicide as well as the facilitators, the witnesses, the practitioners and the families.
Many of us who have lost a loved one will have witnessed them suffer pain and endure agonies that we would not wish on anyone. The bill is really about allowing dying people the dignity of choosing for themselves. I hope that we can continue the debate by agreeing to the principles of the bill.
15:22