Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2026 [Draft]
If the bill to legalise assisted dying is not passed today, many people who have led a dignified campaign in support of a change in the law will be deeply disappointed. Likewise, should the legislation become law, many others will feel just as much disappointment and, in particular, many of our disabled constituents will be shaken by that outcome.
As all members have done, I have received heartfelt pleas from constituents on both sides of the debate. My approach to the bill has been to seek to amend it as best I can to bring in some safeguards, even though I am not convinced of the level of reassurance that such safeguards will offer. I sincerely thank Liam McArthur for his constructive engagement on amendments at stage 3. I also thank the Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care, which I worked with to develop my own amendments, although I should note that the organisation itself takes a neutral position on the bill.
There have been some positive amendments—if not enough to make a substantial difference, from my perspective—and they were lodged in sincerity and good faith. There is now a requirement for the registered medical practitioner to set out in detail how they arrived at their decision to approve a request for an assisted death, rather than a simple declaratory statement to attest that the criteria have been met. That will aid transparency about decision making, but it will not improve the decision-making process in itself.
There are also now requirements to seek to identify indirect pressures and undue influence. That said, I was concerned by suggestions that coercion would not be a particular issue. I remain concerned about the ability to identify coercion, which can be hidden and tricky to recognise, particularly in relation to coercive and controlling behaviour.
I want to put on the record a quote from an article by Dr Anni Donaldson, Dr Mary Neal and Professor David Albert Jones in Scottish Legal News. They said:
“Given the scale of abuse, the low rates of disclosure, and the fact that training, however thorough, cannot reliably detect coercion, it is inevitable that coerced deaths will result if the Assisted Dying Bill becomes law.”
That is not a reason not to pass the bill, but we should not pretend that it will not happen.
There will now be a referral to a palliative care specialist by the registered medical practitioner if they believe that appropriate care is not being offered, but I am concerned about how the practitioner will always be able to have an informed view on that front. Indeed, more generally, we remain unclear about the skill set and training requirements of any practitioner.
It is of concern to me that the bill does not prevent any GP from raising assisted dying with a patient. My concern is that a GP raising such a measure would not be a neutral act, even if it was intended—I am sure that it would be—to be so. In some circumstances, it would compromise the doctor-patient relationship.
I am also aware of our Parliament having to remove protections for opt-outs and matters of conscience from those professionals who might otherwise be required to be involved in the delivery of assisted dying.
We all know about examples of excellent palliative care practice that can make a real difference for many. We also know that there are gaps and resource issues. Such provision is not consistent. We need a strategic expansion of palliative care services across Scotland, and we must build the budget to deliver that expansion in the next parliamentary session, irrespective of whether the bill is passed. For me, that would ideally happen before we consider assisted dying further.
We must also not conflate palliative care budgets with assisted dying budgets. I am not reassured that the bill does that appropriately. Assisted dying is not palliative care.
This evening, I will vote against allowing assisted dying. However, that does not stop me from being conflicted. My reasons, no matter how sincerely held, are likely to offer little comfort to many of those who wish to see assisted dying being allowed. We have heard powerful arguments. However, should the bill be passed, many people, particularly those who live with disabilities, will be deeply shaken.
I will finish with a quote from Inclusion Scotland, which brought the issue home to me. It said:
“Until disabled people have full access to supports necessary to live with dignity, legalising assisted dying will only exacerbate existing inequalities rather than expand genuine choice and control.”
I might be conflicted about the issue, but I am clear that offering choice for some will not offer meaningful choice for all.