Hansard

Shortly after first being elected in 2007, I sat in the chamber listening to a members’ business debate that was led by my former colleague Jeremy Purvis. He was the sponsor of an earlier bill that was aimed at achieving many of the same objectives as the one that we are considering this afternoon. I had no intention that evening of speaking or making an intervention; I just wanted to listen. I remember coming away genuinely proud, as I am today. I believe that this is how our Parliament should be.

The exchanges then were unencumbered by false consensus or by political rancour, in the main. Those participating did themselves and the Parliament great credit by arguing their case passionately, with sincerity and conviction, even where those convictions had evolved over the years.

That bill fell, but the late Margo MacDonald then took up the cudgels. Without any disrespect to Jeremy Purvis or, indeed, Patrick Harvie, even now Margo remains posthumously synonymous with the issue and these proposals.

A charismatic advocate for change, Margo nevertheless took care to nurture cross-party support. Patrick Harvie continued that approach, and I thank and pay tribute to him. I also thank and pay tribute to the my life, my death, my choice campaign and others for all that they have done to progress the bill since Margo’s untimely death. I thank, too, the Parliament’s committees for their diligence and, in particular, the Health and Sport Committee for producing the lead committee’s report, which seeks to reflect the divergent views of its members while identifying areas of legitimate concern.

Although it is an improvement on its predecessors, the bill is certainly not perfect, as Patrick Harvie acknowledged. There are those who feel that it goes too far and others who believe that it does not go far enough. My constituents, whose generally measured and thoughtful input I have greatly valued, fall into both camps and pretty much all places in between. I am grateful to the many groups and organisations that have contacted me. I respect the positions that they have taken, but I am acutely aware that, within and between different faith and disability groups, as well as across the medical and legal professions, individuals hold individual views for and against change.

As members are aware, I am supportive of the general principles of the bill. That support does not stem from direct personal experience of a loved one left suffering unduly at the end of their life, although I have close friends for whom that ordeal was very real and unbearably painful to witness. Over the years, I have come to the conclusion that the status quo is no longer tenable, that change is necessary and that finding ways of allowing individuals dignity in death, as in life, is now essential. Growing numbers of people in Scotland have reached that conclusion, often, I suspect, based on their direct experience of what has happened to a family member or good friend.

Of course, majority public support is not in and of itself reason enough to change the law in such a complex, sensitive and profoundly emotive area. However, it must give us confidence that we should have this debate, that there is an appetite for a move away from the status quo and that, hopefully, there will be patience as we explore a solution that can command the broadest possible support and confidence.

The crux of the bill for me and for many of those I speak to on both sides of the debate is the issue of safeguards. The three-stage process, with cooling-off periods between each, the need for uninvolved witnesses, the requirement for two independent doctors and four separate consultations, the presence of a facilitator and the compulsory reporting of cases to the police set a very high standard of protection.

I understand why people express specific concerns about those who suffer from poor mental health, but general practitioners are accustomed to diagnosing and treating depression and assessing mental capacity. Any suggestion that an individual is suffering from a mental illness will bar them from entering the assisted suicide process. In doubtful cases, a GP can refer a patient to other doctors, including a psychiatrist, for an opinion. I believe that those safeguards will ensure that the vulnerable are protected, but would welcome proposals about what might reasonably be done in addition.

I do not accept the argument that the bill represents a slippery slope. It will allow individuals—only those who are terminally ill, I would argue—to seek assistance in bringing their life to its conclusion, while giving legal protection to those who provide such assistance.

I also struggle to see why support for the bill might imply a lack of commitment to palliative care. Such care will still be the preference for the vast majority, and Marie Curie was right to point out that, at present, at least 11,000 people are missing out on that care every year. That must be addressed, regardless of the bill.

The right to life is not the same as a duty to live. The bill is about providing dignity, respect and choice at the end of life. I hope that Parliament will agree this evening to allow the bill to proceed to the next stage. If it cannot be satisfactorily amended at stage 2, there will still be an opportunity to vote it down at stage 3. I believe that we owe it to those who are looking to Parliament to reflect the public’s desire for change at least to allow that debate and those detailed deliberations to take place.