Meeting of the Parliament 11 March 2026 [Draft]
I will start with amendment 22, which is a tidying amendment.
The concern here is that those accessing assisted dying should be provided with all options of support, including social care and palliative care.
Amendment 34 would add a reference to a social care assessment to the medical practitioner’s statement under section 8, and amendment 34A would add a reference to a palliative care assessment to the medical practitioner’s statement under section 8 in relation to Bob Doris’s amendment 23, which would introduce a requirement to assess palliative care.
Amendment 78 would add a reference to a social care assessment to the medical practitioner’s statement in schedule 2, and amendment 78A would add a reference to a palliative care assessment to the medical practitioner’s statement in schedule 2 in relation to Bob Doris’s amendment 23.
Amendment 83 would add a reference to a social care assessment to a medical practitioner’s statement in schedule 3, and amendment 83A would add a reference to a palliative care assessment to the medical practitioner’s statement in schedule 3 in relation to Bob Doris’s amendment 23.
At one point, the amendments read “social care or palliative care”. I place on record my thanks to Liam McArthur for agreeing to move to “social care and palliative care”. Both serve different needs and should be assessed in their own right.
Amendments 150 and 304 are designed to tackle the concern that assisted dying becomes a preferred option to patients because of a lack of palliative care. Amendment 150 seeks to allow the Scottish ministers to define minimum standards of palliative care for those accessing assisted dying. Amendment 304 is consequential.
I have engaged with the third sector on this issue. I understand that it is hesitant that this may become a barrier to accessing palliative care, but access to an acceptable level of deliverable palliative care is an important consideration of the bill. At stage 2, I drafted the amendment to include a requirement that the plan should be costed, to make a point about deliverability. Following feedback about its workability, I have removed that requirement.
Amendment 155 seeks to address the concern that the medical professionals’ opinions must be truly independent of each other. It would place limitations on the availability of notes to the independent registered medical practitioner to ensure that they are making their assessment on the exact same evidence as was available to the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner at the point of request.
It should be the case that the independent registered medical practitioner cannot have consulted the co‑ordinating registered medical practitioner on the case, except for referral, nor have had access to the notes of the co‑ordinating registered medical practitioner regarding the assisted dying request beyond the date on which the request is made.
Stage 2 feedback from the committee was that the amendment needed to be clear that it restricts only information about the person’s wishes to access assisted dying, not their entire medical record, as we recognise that those who are terminally ill can have rapidly changing healthcare needs and concerns.
I have tidied up the amendment, which now requires that the independent registered medical practitioner
“has not been provided with any other notes prepared by the coordinating registered medical practitioner regarding the person’s request to be provided with assistance to end their own life since the date of the first declaration”.
Amendment 193, which is consequential to amendment 174, would require that the statement from an independent assessor be recorded in an adult’s medical record.
I move amendment 150.