Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2026 [Draft]
I wish to make a declaration of interests: I am a practising NHS general practitioner, who is registered with the General Medical Council, and a member of the British Medical Association. In addition, I chaired the medical advisory group for the Assisted Dying for the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. Also, I am a practising Hindu.
This debate touches on some of the most profound questions that any of us will ever face—life, suffering, dignity and death. I want to express my sincere respect for those colleagues and members of the public whose religious, ethical or philosophical compasses make it deeply difficult to contemplate supporting the bill. Those views are sincerely held and deserve respect in the chamber. I say that as someone who shares some of those internal tensions—as a practising Hindu, I wrestle with the philosophical, ethical and spiritual aspects of my faith when I consider legislation such as this. These are not abstract ideas to me; they are part of my own moral framework.
However, this Parliament is not a theocracy. Our responsibility is to inquire, to investigate, to debate, and, sometimes, to struggle with difficult questions so that we make decisions that improve people’s lives. That is why I came into politics.
We cannot be out of touch with the country that we all serve. Scotland today is largely secular. We live in a pluralistic society with many different moral perspectives, and 81 per cent of the public support assisted dying.
We, in this chamber, and all those watching share two things: we are born and we will die. All of us—no exceptions. We control all aspects of our lives, but we have no control over how we die. People die alone, scared and in agonising pain. As a patient told me, “I wouldn’t let a dog die like this. Why am I having to suffer like this?” That patient can choose to starve herself or to stop drinking and to die horrifically, but she could not choose to die with dignity or painlessly. Let us here, today, give people a real choice over how they die.
Having chaired the bill’s medical advisory group, I believe that we have before us a serious and sound piece of legislation. We must also be honest about the reality that already exists. Today, the option of a peaceful assisted death is effectively available only to those with the financial means to travel abroad. Those without such means often face prolonged suffering without the same choices, and that inequality should trouble us.
This bill is also not and must never be seen as an alternative to high-quality palliative care. As a GP, I have seen the extraordinary compassion and skill of palliative care teams. They do remarkable work, and I will continue to advocate strongly for greater resources in this area. Palliative care must remain a cornerstone of how we care for people at the end of life, but choice matters.
For some patients, despite excellent palliative care, suffering cannot always be relieved. For those individuals, the dignity of choice at the end of life is something that many Scots believe should be available.
The bill represents years of work, consultation and scrutiny. It offers compassion, safeguards and dignity for those who face the end of life.
If the bill falls today, it will not simply be a procedural moment; it will be a lost opportunity to help those suffering and dying who have no voice. For those reasons, and with respect for colleagues who will reach a different conclusion, I believe that this is a good bill, a sound bill and a bill that deserves the support of this Parliament.