Hansard

My role as deputy convener of the Health and Sport Committee in this afternoon’s debate is to present to the chamber the committee’s findings and its recommendations to Parliament on the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill. The Parliament’s mace at the front of the chamber bears just four words: wisdom, justice, compassion and integrity. Those are the ideals to which the people of Scotland expect their MSPs to aspire. This bill is not one that divides people along political lines; the decision on it will be based on individual members’ consciences, and the importance of individual members ensuring that they apply the four attributes that are engraved on our mace to their decision this afternoon is therefore heightened.

I am sure that Margo MacDonald would have endorsed such an approach, and I take this opportunity to place on record the committee’s recognition of Margo’s commitment, personal investment and social conscience in pursuing this change to the law over many years. The committee’s consideration of the bill has involved the examination of complex moral and legal issues, and it has been admirably informed by the Scottish Parliament information centre, the Parliament’s legal office and Dr Mary Neal, the committee's adviser on the bill, whom I thank for her assiduous contribution to the committee’s work.

We received more than 900 written submissions alone, the vast majority of which were from individuals—Presiding Officer, I hope that you will agree that that kind of engagement makes a positive contribution to the work of our nation’s Parliament. The committee would like to thank everyone who provided written and oral evidence as part of its consideration of the bill’s general principles. The proposed legislation touches lives in a deeply personal way, and we pay particular thanks to those who provided personal accounts of their experience of caring for seriously ill loved ones or of being present in the lead-up to their deaths.

Many in favour of the bill argued that it is compassionate to provide relief from intolerable suffering or distress and cruel to refuse it. Jennifer Buchan of the Humanist Society Scotland spoke movingly of her experience, saying:

“I am a nurse who has worked in hospitals and in the community. I have worked with people who have dreaded the time when living would become unbearable for them. I have sat on the beds and held the hands of people who have asked me to help them to go every day for weeks, and I have not been able to do that: I have had just to sit by their beds.”

In contrast, however, the committee received evidence of other ways to respond compassionately to suffering. Dr Sally Witcher from Inclusion Scotland believed that negative attitudes toward illness, old age and disability already existed and were a factor in creating demand for assisted suicide. She told the committee:

“Much of the support for bills such as this one is driven by a profound fear of becoming disabled, ageing and becoming ill. Rather than say that we should make it easier for people with that profound fear to end their lives or let them feel confident that they could do so should that terrible thing happen ... we need to challenge those negative attitudes and have public policy that ensures that, when people are old, ill or disabled, they get the best quality of life possible, and that the right sort of support is available to enable full and independent living as equal citizens for as long as possible.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 3 February 2015; c 9, 44.]

The committee acknowledges that a desire to be compassionate towards those who are suffering is a key factor that motivates the bill and its supporters. It also acknowledges the concerns of opponents of the bill, who argue that although that aim is laudable, it carries with it risks that they consider to be too high—the risks associated with crossing a legal and moral Rubicon. The committee notes that the bill’s opponents believe that there are other ways of showing solidarity with and compassion for those who are suffering distress, short of helping them to commit suicide.

Autonomy is a key underlying principle of the bill. The member in charge of the bill described the bill as

“the continuation of a decades-long change in healthcare and medical practice that has involved a considerable move away from a slightly top-down approach—as some witnesses acknowledged ... to one that is much more focused on patient empowerment, patient decision making and the principle that each of us has the right to determine major choices about our own lives.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 17 February 2015; c 3.]

In contrast, Dr Stephen Hutchison of Highland Hospice told the committee:

“We function as a relational and interdependent society ... Therefore, we need to look at choice with responsibility. To me, that puts a completely different emphasis on the issue, as it is then not about what the individual chooses and demands. That is part of the equation, but it has to be balanced with careful scrutiny of the implications for the rest of society and, in particular, for the vast numbers of frail, vulnerable and frightened people whom we look after.”—[Official Report, Health and Sport Committee, 27 January 2015; c 5.]