Hansard

Until a few days ago, I was very much undecided about how I would vote come decision time tonight. To be honest, I am still not 100 per cent there yet, although Patrick Harvie’s response to the stage 1 report and his remarks today have gone some way towards persuading me that we ought to allow the bill to move to stage 2 so that the amending that it undoubtedly requires can take place.

Like many people, I am instinctively inclined towards the principle of individuals having the right to decide whether to end their life when confronted by an intolerable end to that life, and that conviction was only strengthened by the loss of my father some six months ago. Watching a loved one die, albeit not in quite the circumstances covered by the bill, inevitably has a bearing on one’s views on such matters. I recall at various times over those awful three days telling myself that I would absolutely support the bill when the opportunity arose, and yet I find myself torn, because the bill as drafted contains, as we have heard, a number of serious flaws.

I do not intend to rehearse each area of concern, especially as colleagues across the chamber have already highlighted some of them and others are seeking the opportunity to contribute to the debate. Instead, I want to focus on what is, for me, a critical issue—respecting the views of health professionals who, for perfectly understandable reasons, would not wish to involve themselves in any way in the assisted suicide process.

Last year, the Parliament found a means of reconciling conflicting opinions on equal marriage, by framing the Marriage and Civil Partnership (Scotland) Act 2014 in such a way as to ensure that faith groups or individual celebrants who, because of their genuine, deeply held convictions, did not want to be involved in the process could not be compelled to carry out marriages. We were right to do that.

In the case of the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill, we are told that a majority of doctors and many pharmacists and psychiatrists are opposed. On all sides of the argument, there appears to be a recognition that some kind of opt-out would be appropriate. Even the my life, my death, my choice campaign, which supports the legislation, has admitted:

“It is important that no doctor should be forced to take part.”

Of course, we do not have the option of making statutory provision in this area, and seeking to deliver protection for individual practitioners’ rights of conscience through professional guidance would not provide a cast-iron protection. In principle, it might be possible under section 104 of the Scotland Act 1998 for a United Kingdom minister to deliver a conscience clause, and I therefore welcome Patrick Harvie’s commitment to explore that option if the bill’s general principles are agreed to later today, because for me it is essential that medical practitioners should not be forced to participate in a process that runs contrary to their beliefs.

However, having said all that, if we were able to respect the views and rights of medical practitioners, where would that leave us in protecting individuals from coercion or influence in coming to a decision? I was struck by the comments of Professor David Jones when he pointed out in evidence to the Health and Sport Committee that people are vulnerable not only to coercion but to influence, which could include their own subjective sense of becoming a burden.

As both the Health and Sport Committee and Mr Harvie have acknowledged, the risk of coercion can only ever be minimised—it can never be eliminated completely—but in seeking to respect the rights of medical practitioners might we be reducing protection against coercion or influence compared with what might result from introducing a bill without a conscience clause? I think that there is a dilemma there. It has been suggested that perhaps only a small number of doctors would be willing to play a part in delivering the aims of the bill. If that is the case, where is the local knowledge of patients and their circumstances that might identify where a vulnerable individual is being leaned on or is being influenced by their own concerns about becoming a burden on family? The days of each of us having our own GP within a practice have all but gone; even if those days were still with us, there would be no way of removing entirely the possibility of coercion or influence being at work. If people found themselves having to trawl around for a GP who would be willing to participate, the possibility of coercion or influence not being picked up on would increase.

I therefore welcome Patrick Harvie’s indication that he would be willing to discuss possible amendments in the area of coercion, although I accept that it is a difficult issue to address when we must surely accept in the first instance that, above all else, we have to provide medical practitioners with a conscience clause.

As I indicated at the beginning of my speech, I have been quite conflicted in my views on the bill. I do not believe that, as drafted, it is a particularly good piece of legislation. I am one of those whom Patrick Harvie described as not being convinced of the detail of the bill. However, I am now inclined to support the principles at decision time, in the hope that the parliamentary process can thereafter make it fit for purpose, and without in any way committing to supporting it at stage 3.