Meeting of the Parliament 12 March 2026 [Draft]
I want to make a short contribution on this group of amendments.
Doctors’ opinions are very influential, in my experience. It is also my experience that that can vary among different cultures. I appreciate that many members have looked at different jurisdictions and the legislation that applies there, but we should see the legislation in the context of our own culture. That is my experience: that doctors are very influential in our society.
It should be clear that a doctor’s opinion should not form any part of a diagnosis. That is a substantive issue in relation to the bill—which, as I have said on the record, I will not be supporting. However, if it is passed, I want to ensure that there are safeguards in it.
As we discussed yesterday, members of the medical profession will need to decide whether they wish to participate in the administration of assisted dying. In some ways, I feel that there could be a protection for those in the medical profession in the amendments in this group, because if it is clear that they will not be expected to introduce the option into the conversation, they will be asked not to. Those people’s function, as I understand it, will be to administer and assist a person who wishes to take their life.
It seems to me that, if the bill were to pass, a review would be the best way to decide whether or not there are omissions, but the current provision is absolutely wrong.
I agree that there is some confusion here with the “Do not resuscitate” policy, which was misused during Covid. That is an NHS policy question, as well as a medical question.
I also agree with what Kate Forbes said about patients being vulnerable. We must provide a safeguard because of that. The greatest safeguard here, in terms of the ethics of the legislation, is to ensure that we are safeguarding the profession with clarity on what is expected at this point in a person’s pathway to their diagnosis, should it be terminal.