Hansard

As a co-sponsor of the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill, I have to say that I have wrestled with the content of anything that I might say in its support this afternoon more than I have with any other speech that I have given in this Parliament. In five minutes, there is really not an opportunity to make the detailed argument that one would like to make, so one falls back slightly on generalities.

It is a significant issue of substance that we in this Parliament are entrusted to resolve, and one on which we defer to our conscience. The most recent example of such an issue was equal marriage. Outside the chamber, in participating in the public debate, there have been some familiar faces on the other side of the argument as I have gone around. One consistent view that I have come across is the “the end of the world is nigh” tendency. That debate was, of course, a life-and-death matter for some; this is literally a life-and-death matter.

I should say that some members might want to leave at this point, because this morning I received a very violent and abusive phone call from a member of the public who told me that if I spoke in support of the bill in the debate this afternoon, I was doomed, in every sense of the word, and that a greater force would strike me down in the course of my speech. In the circumstances, I sat very deliberately next to Mr Fraser, believing that a bit of rough justice would be appropriate. [Laughter.]

However, I have read about 20-year-olds who might be fed up with life queueing round the block because they would want to opt for assisted suicide; I have heard about all those greedy relatives who would apparently coerce all their loved ones into assisted suicide—as Patrick Harvie said, they could do that now outwith the framework of the law; and I have heard people say that it would be the end of palliative care. There must be a much more measured debate, and I am grateful for the tone that has been struck in the chamber this afternoon.

I think that the nadir of all of this came in a debate in which I was engaged with the Care Not Killing organisation. After a bloodless PowerPoint presentation on nine points, the person said as a tenth point to an audience of elderly people:

“This was all initiated by Hitler during the second world war. I draw no conclusions from that; I leave you to draw your own.”

That is absolutely shameful. I think that all sides in this argument, irrespective of their perspective, would want to ensure that, were the bill to be passed, the post-legislative scrutiny and everything that the Parliament did thereafter were designed to ensure that there was no coercion and that the legislation operated entirely in the spirit that was intended.

As Patrick Harvie said, this is Margo MacDonald’s bill and, respecting that, he has not brought forward amendments. However, if members read the exemplary evidence that he gave to the Health and Sport Committee on 17 February, they will see that it is perfectly apparent that the proponents of the bill are open to a series of amendments being lodged to make a better piece of legislation. There are many suggestions from the Law Society of Scotland that make perfect sense and to which I will return.

I respect that many colleagues might be opposed to the bill for different reasons: some through conviction and some through faith. I am an unconfirmed agnostic, as I have said before, so I cannot share an objection based on faith, but I have noticed that many of faith are, in fact, supporters of the principles of the bill. Some are opposed to the bill either because they object to its aims, or because they object to the particular workings of the bill as drafted—that is why I support the calls by Mike MacKenzie, Liam McArthur, Mary Fee and others to allow the bill to proceed to stage 2, specifically because we have been here before.

If we are not to keep coming back to the Parliament with this issue, we have a duty to those—we understand it to be the majority of the population—who are sympathetic to the bill’s aims to create as workable a bill as we can and then let the Parliament divide on the principle of whether the bill should go forward. If we do that, outside of the Parliament Scotland would know that the bill is not passing—if it is not passing—not because there are some clauses in it that people are not sure are workable, but because members do not agree with it. I think that a far clearer and greater service would be done if we went to that phase.

I have heard talk of palliative care, but I had a constituent who suffered from vascular Parkinsonism and endured a distressing end, with her family, and suffered a death that she had sought to avoid. I say to those who talk about palliative care that, first, we have relied on the voluntary sector far too much and that, with an ageing population, we will have to invest much more heavily in palliative care as we go forward. However, for some of the 80 people—just 80, and not the thousands who benefit from palliative care—who might exercise the option of assisted suicide, their particular condition is one that is not relieved by the palliative care option and the bill would give them the option to choose.

Jean Clement-Smith Carlaw, my late grandmother of some 20 years now, was a passionate advocate of this cause and helped shape and inform the convictions that I eventually settled upon—grandparents are great things; they have lived long and have seen much. I speak today in her name—she endured, unfortunately, the very end that she sought to avoid—and in the name of many others who are suffering today and those who hope not to have to suffer in the future.