Meeting of the Parliament 27 May 2015
I thank all those organisations that sent briefings indicating their concerns about the bill. I especially thank all the many constituents who wrote to me, including those on both sides of the issue: those who are keen to see the bill passed and those who are not. I very much respect both viewpoints, and the fact that assisted suicide is a difficult issue for everyone, and for all of us here in the chamber this afternoon.
My principal argument this afternoon is that we owe it to all the people who have written to us, including those who are concerned about the issue and those who may fall under the scope of the legislation—indeed, we owe it to everyone—to scrutinise and debate the issue properly. In order to do that, we need to take the bill all the way through the parliamentary process.
We owe it to all those people to vote yes today, so that we may do full and proper justice to this most difficult of issues, and so that, whatever the outcome is, we can all look our constituents in the eye and explain to them exactly why we voted as we did.
I also thank my colleagues on the Health and Sport Committee, who provided an excellent service on behalf of the Parliament and of the public in shedding light on the issues that are causing most concern in relation to the bill. I hope that during the committee’s discussions I was able to articulate my position adequately, which is that if we have it within our means to relieve suffering, we should do so. That is my default position.
I acknowledge the arguments that have been made against the bill. There are concerns that the bill may result in the lowering of the standard and the availability of palliative care. I would argue the opposite. Perhaps it will give an added impetus to palliative care, especially from those who do not believe in the principle of assisted suicide. If the bill is passed, they will have the opportunity to persuade anyone contemplating assisted suicide against that, and to provide them with palliative care.
The bill does not call for psychiatric assessment to be automatic but neither does it rule it out and that option will be available if it is felt to be necessary in the opinion of either of the two doctors who have to sign off the request for assisted suicide. We either trust our doctors or we do not. I trust them.
There are those who criticise the bill because it is not specific enough—because it is vague or uncertain in some areas. I think that that is a strength rather than a weakness. Our criminal law is comprehensive, complex and sometimes confusing. Few of us are experts in criminal law and yet ignorance of the law is no excuse. It behoves us, therefore, to stay well on the right side of the law, as the vast majority of us do. That moral hazard is necessary. That uncertainty will ensure that anyone participating in the process of assisted suicide will stay well on the right side of the law.
Perhaps the issue that concerns me most is the possibility of coercion. It seems that some people take a dim and dark view of their fellow citizens. I am afraid that I do not share that view. I think that, in the main, we are good and we are moral. Nevertheless, I do not accept that it is beyond our intelligence, our wit and our wisdom in this chamber to provide safeguards against coercion and against a number of other criticisms that have been made about the bill.
It is beyond dispute that there is avoidable suffering across Scotland. Palliative care is not always effective and it is not nearly as widely available as it ought to be. Suffering can only be understood and defined by those who are suffering, not by those who are not.
We pass many bills in this chamber that are subject to considerable amendment. I am sure that this bill can be amended in ways that will deal with most, if not all, of the concerns.
We may not be able to reassure everyone that the bill is fit to pass into law, but to my mind, we owe it to everyone—we owe it to all those who are suffering or who face the prospect of suffering and we owe it to Margo MacDonald, whom we held in high esteem as a person of integrity, common sense and wisdom—to give it our best effort, and that means voting yes this afternoon.
15:33