Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2026 [Draft]
We have finally reached the last stage of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. I am sure that, for many, it has been a long and uncomfortable journey. We have all had to consider our own mortality and that of our constituents. Looking death in the eye has never been easy, and we must always consider the fragility of life. However, let us be clear: in my mind, life is always about living.
I have heard much in the debate about why people should have the choice. In principle, I agree. However, choice can be made only if there are genuine options. Those options must include palliative care, for which my colleague Miles Briggs has fought hard. However, the sad fact is that more than 14,000 Scots a year die without proper palliative care, and a lot of money would be needed to provide that. Thus, to some, it may be easier to opt for death, knowing that palliative care close to their home and family is unavailable. That is not a choice. Before we consider helping those people to die, we must know that their end of life is fully provided for and funded—which, at the moment, it is not.
Funding is a key issue when it comes to the bill. We know that funding for it would come from the existing national health service budget. The Government has been clear that it has no idea of the costs, but it admits that they would be high, and it says that a level of reprioritisation would be required. That means that existing services would face funding cuts. Which treatments would be cut? Would they include cancer care, palliative care, elective surgery, or perhaps even screening for breast or bowel cancers? It is just not good enough to say, “Pass this bill, and then we’ll work out how we’re going to pay for it.” We need clarity now.
On clarity, if the bill is passed, what will happen to those who want to opt out of providing an assisted death—from doctors to nurses to care homes to palliative care homes? Many of those, like me, will have no religious drivers but will know in their hearts that they do not want to be part of the process. The part of the bill that would have protected conscientious objectors has been removed, in order to make the bill competent. That worries me. Civil servants and ministers at Westminster will be able to decide on how to protect Scots in what is specifically a Scottish bill. Here, in our Parliament, there will be no choice on the exact detail. That not only seems wrong but is wrong.
I will turn to the area of the bill that gives me the greatest concern: coercion, including self-coercion. I find that a really difficult area to discuss. When one’s grip on life is fragile, the mind does somersaults. However, once someone gets past thinking that it might be easier and kinder to their family to die, the overriding consideration will turn to living. Treatment options and pathways for care are, rightly, the top priorities. However, the bill would give doctors the right, in terminal cases, to say, “Death is available.” I believe that the last thing that we should do is suggest that ending life is a form of treatment.
Presiding Officer, when we despair we need hope. Death offers no hope. Treatment and care offer hope. Let us provide and fund that care before we legislate to end life. Until we do, I am afraid that I cannot support the offering of assisted death; to me, that is morally wrong if we cannot allow for an assisted life.