Hansard

I understand Daniel Johnson’s point. I worked closely with the British Medical Association on the amendments that I lodged after stage 1 to provide reassurance on the section 104 order.

On the point about guidance, any guidance or secondary legislation will have to be taken forward in consultation with the sector, which I fully expect will happen. Parliament should have confidence in that process.

I pay personal tribute to the cabinet secretary and wish him a speedy recovery. Neil Gray is the MSP I have known longest, a good friend and someone I respect enormously. It has not been easy for him to navigate the path that he has taken on the bill, given the differing views around the Cabinet table and across Government, but he has discharged those responsibilities unwaveringly. I hope that he will now feel able to vote—like every other member in the chamber—according to his conscience. To expect him to do otherwise would be unfair, unreasonable and unjust.

I said earlier that this is a significant moment for this Parliament—probably the most significant. I know how conflicted many colleagues feel and know that some may even still be unsure about how they are going to vote later. However, what we are doing is not breaking new ground and we are not doing anything that legislators around the world have not already done. I accept that every assisted dying law is different and that each must be tailored to meet the circumstances of its own jurisdiction. However, I do not accept the assertion that, were the bill to be passed and the choice of assisted dying made available in Scotland to those who meet the strict criteria, it would operate at odds with what we see in states and countries that have similar models based on terminal illness and mental capacity.

Dr Andrea Bendrups, the president of Voluntary Assisted Dying Australia and New Zealand, a body representing health professionals, wrote to MSPs last week. Many VADANZ members have trained, or worked in, the UK, so our debate is being watched closely there. In her letter, Dr Bendrups writes:

“It’s been notable that the arguments being made against a change in the law are in fact the same arguments that were made over many years in Australia and New Zealand.

None of the fears raised have been realised in practice—eligibility criteria have not been expanded; proper assessments to confirm capacity and the absence of coercion have meant not all applicants are found eligible; and palliative care has flourished. Regular scrutiny and oversight show these laws are safe and are fulfilling their aims.”

Addressing concerns about doctor-patient relationships, Dr Bendrups goes on to say:

“As clinicians we know how helpless we can sometimes feel when palliative care has reached its limits and when our patients ask for help that we cannot offer.

The change in the law on assisted dying meant we can now deliver a fuller range of choices to dying people in a more transparent and regulated manner. The integration of voluntary assisted dying into our existing health system has meant that end-of-life care is now safer and fairer than ever before.”

I do not underestimate how difficult a decision this is for colleagues, even for some who are very clear about how they are going to vote and why. However, we must recognise that not passing the bill would have consequences. The issue will not go away; indeed, the numbers affected will only rise. All that we will do by putting off changing the law is push decisions overseas and behind closed doors.

As I did at stage 1, I urge MSPs to have the voices of dying Scots at the front of their minds when they come to vote. To help with that, I will conclude with the words of Lisa Fleming, who visited Parliament recently to share her experience of living with secondary breast cancer for the past nine years. Lisa explains:

“Sadly, choosing not to support this Bill is a vote for continuing the well-established risks and dangers present in the status quo. As with many things there is a cost of inaction. In this instance, the price of MSPs’ uncertainty would be mine to pay.

Voting down this Bill is not risk free. The consequences are not hypothetical. They are lived every day.

To the concern this would lead to an enormous change in healthcare, I disagree. I can already choose to refuse treatment whenever I wish, even if that treatment would save my life.

I can legally choose to hasten my death by voluntarily stopping eating and drinking, literally starving myself to death.

Doctors can already administer doses of morphine and other palliative medicines that would hasten my death as long as their motive is to alleviate my pain. Legalising assisted dying would not change my relationship to my doctor—it would allow me to be open and honest about what I want and ensure I wouldn't be forced to suffer against my wishes.

I fight every day to live a little longer. But every day I have, contains fear over how I will die. If I knew I had the choice of an assisted death at the end, I could live the rest of my life without that fear.

Please think of me as you cast your vote.”

Presiding Officer, I urge members to listen to Lisa and the many, many like her who desperately need us to give dying Scots more choice, more dignity and more compassion.

I move,

That the Parliament agrees that the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill be passed.

18:36