Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2026 [Draft]
It is on occasions such as these, when the matter that is under consideration is so challenged by complex ethical, moral, legal and practical questions, that I have come to know the Scottish Parliament at its best. We saw that last week and I believe that we are seeing it again this evening. That is because, for free votes, the increasingly confrontational and divisive politics of this chamber can be put to one side. Such votes encourage widespread respect across the debating chamber for different views, which are always sincerely held by the individuals concerned, and many are based on personal reflections. I again pay tribute to Liam McArthur for the respectful manner in which he has led the bill.
For many years, I have come to this debate conflicted, well understanding several of the key points raised by those who support assisted dying, partly based on my own family experience, but also understanding the key points in the case against. It is a debate in which I have become much more interested and, as such, I hope, better informed, given all the reading that I have undertaken on the subject and having listened to the many hundreds—perhaps many thousands—of constituents who have been in touch not just about this bill but about the two previous similar bills. I thank them all.
However, there are two particular aspects of the debate that continue to trouble me a great deal and which are the main reasons why I will vote against the bill this evening. The first relates to the protection of our most vulnerable constituents. I sympathise with all those who tell us that this debate is all about free will and the right to choose, but that free will and the right to choose can never exist in a vacuum. They are contingent on other factors: being free from pressure and free from any coercion.
Death, whether assisted or not, also affects the rights of other people. I make that point because that issue has been a substantial part of the concern of many within disability and other vulnerable groups, who believe that the bill would apply too much pressure on them. I share that concern. As MSPs, we often deal with very vulnerable constituents, and I have personally and professionally learned a great deal from that experience. As a result, I worry about the implications in relation to coercive situations within families, who may put pressure on vulnerable relatives to end their lives, perhaps for financial reasons in increasingly difficult fiscal situations or for reasons that suit their circumstances rather than those of the patient.
My second reason for opposing the bill is my on-going concern about the lack of safeguards and the hidden costs. Irrespective of whether members are for or against the principle, medical professionals are very clearly telling us that some aspects of the bill are both unsafe and unworkable because of the removal of section 18, which contained vital protections that, in their eyes, are central to the safe, ethical and fair delivery of care.
For me, society must surely always have a respect for the sanctity of life. That must include the medical profession’s commitment to saving lives. I continue to worry about a situation whereby we hand ultimate power to doctors, with the possibility that voluntary action could lead to involuntary action.
Then there is the issue of constantly improving medicine—the fact that, all the time, ever more successful treatments are being developed, including some treatments for diseases that were previously thought to be terminal. That is not unrelated to some of the arguments about the widening of the eligibility criteria, as has been the case in Canada.
I note, again, that the lead committee worried about the broad definition of “terminally ill”, believing that that could include those who might well live much longer.
As I have mentioned, the debate has always been complex and emotive, and it has deserved our fullest attention.
As I stand down from the Parliament in a few days’ time, I thank all colleagues, former and present, for their engagement with me over the past 20 years. However, I also express my earnest hope that, in future sessions, much more of our politics might be conducted in the current manner—considered, respectful and free from the unpleasant rancour that has come to colour far too much of our political discourse. I believe that the public both wants and has a right to expect that change if Scotland is to be a stronger nation.