Meeting of the Parliament 10 March 2026 [Draft]
I have to say that that is not the evidence that the disability community has presented to me, and it is not the evidence that is coming loud and clear from those with lived experience, in particular in Canada and parts of Australia.
I have to say that I disagree fundamentally with the presumption that Mr McArthur puts forward.
As I was saying, people with disability face higher rates of poverty, limited access to healthcare, social isolation and, at times, a sense that society does not fully value their lives. Against that backdrop, the bill would risk compounding those pressures and subtly signalling that the lives of our most vulnerable are less worthy of protection. How we treat those with terminal illness and disability speaks volumes about the type of people and the type of society that we are, and we should make no mistake about it—we will be judged by that.
I welcome what Daniel Johnson has tried to do, because, just recently, Lord Falconer, who is taking forward the bill in the House of Lords, said:
“Your financial position might be an element in what makes you reach a decision.”
He went on to note:
“The evidence from abroad is that it is people from perhaps more financially secure circumstances who make this sort of choice.”—[Official Report, House of Lords, 16 January 2026; Vol 851, c 2019-20.]
His argument is that assisted dying is framed around choice.
However, again, the disturbing implication is that difficult circumstances, such as poverty, vulnerability or domestic abuse might make assisted dying an option for some. Let me be clear—I believe that that is outrageous and not the type of society that I want to live in. Being poor or living with disability is not a choice, and it should never be used as a reason to facilitate the ending of someone’s life.
Many people have told the Parliament that their fear is not just of overt coercion but of subtle pressure—the sense of being a burden, the worry about consuming scarce resources and the feeling that others might be better off without them. Those pressures, let me tell members, are real, and legislation that treats disability as a factor in eligibility risks legitimising those fears.
We heard from Daniel Johnson about making the legal definition clearer. We all know that, if the bill becomes an act, it will be interpreted by the courts over time, and even the safest safeguards could well be eroded by the courts.
The measure of a society is not only how it protects autonomy but how it safeguards those who are most vulnerable. If the bill is passed, it will define us as a Parliament and Scotland as a society by the way that we treat those who are weakened, most at risk and often overlooked. We have a duty as parliamentarians to ensure that no disabled person ever feels that their life is conditional or less valued, or that assisted suicide could be considered as something that brings economic benefit. Every life must be respected, protected and affirmed without compromise. How we act and how we stand is a measure of the integrity and moral character of this Parliament and our society—not just in the eyes of history, but in the judgment of the people of Scotland and, most importantly, of the most vulnerable among us.