Meeting of the Parliament 13 March 2026 [Draft]
I start by thanking Murdo Fraser for his powerful and sobering remarks.
Group 16 addresses an issue that may seem procedural but, as Murdo Fraser has described well, is at the heart of the concerns of many in the chamber who will oppose the bill. Those concerns relate to the way that assisted dying is described, which we have already had an exchange about, and the way that it is communicated to the public. Amendment 248, in my name, proposes a simple safeguard. When assisted dying is referred to publicly under the act, if the bill is passed, reference must also be made to information about suicide prevention and the availability of palliative care. That requirement is important. If the Parliament creates a lawful pathway for assisted dying, it will inevitably shape the wider conversation about suffering, death and the choices that people believe would be open to them. The way that information is presented will matter, particularly for those who may already feel vulnerable, isolated or overwhelmed. My amendment seeks to ensure that assisted dying is never presented in isolation from the care and support that should surround people. If someone encounters information about assisted dying, they should also encounter information about suicide prevention. They should know that help and intervention exist and that society has a duty to care for those who may be experiencing despair. Equally, they should encounter clear information about palliative care.
Many people do not realise how far palliative care has advanced or how effectively suffering can often be managed. That care should never sit quietly in the background while assisted dying becomes the focus of attention. If the law is to allow assistance in dying, we must ensure that help to live is never hidden from view. My colleague Murdo Fraser has already raised many important points about the need to ensure that people who request assisted dying are provided with information about suicide prevention. I agree with that approach. Amendment 248 would apply the same principle to the way in which the law would be communicated publicly.
I want to be clear with colleagues that I remain opposed to the bill. I do not believe that a law of this nature can ever be made entirely safe. However, if the Parliament proceeds, we must at least be honest about what we are discussing. The bill would permit doctors to assist individuals to end their lives, and that reality cannot be separated from the broader questions surrounding suicide prevention and support for those who are experiencing profound distress.
International experts have made similar points. The International Association for Suicide Prevention has stated that suicide involves intentionally carrying out an act to end one’s life and has warned that there can be an overlap between suicide, euthanasia and assisted dying. It has also emphasised that anyone who is considering ending their life should have access to high-quality suicide prevention support and intervention. We should listen to that advice. Amendment 248 seeks to ensure that the information that is communicated on the act, if the bill is passed, would reflect the responsibility that we have to make it safe. It would ensure that assisted dying is never presented without reference to prevention, support and care.
I am about to close, but I am happy to give way to Rona Mackay.