Meeting of the Parliament 13 May 2025
I thank Liam Kerr for that intervention. He is correct in that concerns have been raised about that definition in some quarters, although the evidence that was given to the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee by the likes of the Royal College of General Practitioners and other medical bodies was more relaxed about the definition. However, there is an opportunity at stages 2 and 3 to further tighten it up or, indeed, to recognise where further clarity can be provided in secondary legislation.
An individual would have to be made aware of all the treatment options that were available to ensure that any decision was fully informed, and there would be time periods for reflection and consideration. Once an individual had been deemed eligible, there would be no requirement for them to act on the decision within a specific timeframe. Indeed, in jurisdictions around the world, we see that around a third of those who successfully apply for an assisted death do not ultimately end up using it. Often, it is enough to know that the option is there, should it be needed, allowing the dying person the peace of mind to get on with getting the most out of the rest of their life.
Should a person wish to proceed, however, the medication would be prescribed by a pharmacist and delivered by a medical professional, who would check capacity and intent and remain present; it would then require to be self-administered by the individual.
Although, clearly, there is overwhelming public support across Scotland for a change in the law, I have, throughout stage 1, engaged with and listened closely to those with concerns. For example, I have reflected on concerns on the minimum age threshold and am persuaded of the case for amending the bill at stage 2 to raise that to 18.
Concerns have also been raised by some disability groups and campaigners about the impact that, they say, the bill would have on efforts to improve the rights and lives of those in the disability community. I have taken those concerns seriously from the outset and have done my best to engage. At this point, I pay tribute to Pam Duncan-Glancy for the time that she has spared me to discuss the issues. Fundamentally, we are arriving at different points, but I am enormously grateful for her insights.
I know from family experience that many in the disability community face discrimination in a society that, too often, devalues them. Disability campaigners who wrote to MSPs last week agree, pointing out:
“It is unacceptable that people with disabilities continue to face social stigma, inequalities ... and inadequate support, including at the end of life. These problems need urgent attention.”
They go on to say:
“However, it would be a mistake to conclude ... that we should oppose legalising assisted dying for terminally ill people until those wider problems are fixed.
It is paternalistic and offensive to imply that reducing choices will resolve inequalities.”
Denying dying Scots more choice will not enhance the lives of those with a disability; nor would it be acceptable for a person with a disability who meets the eligibility criteria under my bill to be denied the same choice as anyone else.