Meeting of the Parliament 17 March 2026 [Draft]
As I rise to make my last contribution to a debate in this Parliament after some 27 years, I cannot think of a more consequential debate taking place during my time here. I offer my congratulations and thanks to Liam McArthur and to colleagues across the chamber for what has been a very dignified and considered debate to this point.
We all care about people dying and want to see good deaths for those whom we love and for ourselves. However, the bill would not just create a new option for a few. If enacted, it would impose a new reality for every person towards the end of their life—the option of assisted dying. In my view, it would change life and death for everyone. In our consideration of the bill, we should be particularly mindful of the impact that it could have on some of the most vulnerable members of our society, who lack agency in their decision making.
Last week, I shared my concerns that the safeguarding measures in the bill would not provide suitably robust defences against the risk of coercion. In 2018, as a Parliament, we listened to the voices of women who had suffered at the hands of abusers through domestic abuse. We listened to their plea to recognise the extent of coercive abuse, and we worked with experts to shape legislation to tackle the issue. Now, more than ever, I believe that we need to listen to those voices again as they warn us of the dangers that the bill would create.
Isabelle Kerr, who has run rape crisis centres in Scotland for decades, recently stated that the bill
“assumes that busy doctors will have the capacity and expertise to spot signs of abuse. My experience tells me that they won’t in most cases.”
She went on to say:
“MSPs need to realise that coercion will occur under an assisted dying law. In my view, the real questions are who will be coerced to die, and how many such deaths will be missed.”
She continued:
“This is a complex issue. Strong arguments are put forward by both sides … However, the success of legislation often boils down to its workability. I feel duty bound to point out that the Assisted Dying Bill at Holyrood is not workable in its approach to detecting coercion.”
Those are strong words—not from a person who opposes the law in principle, but from someone who is concerned about what we might call the constituency of very vulnerable people in our country. When supporters of the bill talk about choice and autonomy, they should remember that those are not the reality for some women, disabled people and older people who are trapped in abusive and coercive situations. We should be in no doubt that coercion would take place. No words in this bill would prevent it, because, sadly, not everyone who dies has people around them who truly have their best interests at heart.
Domestic abuse experts, such as Dr Anni Donaldson, have warned us that the bill
“risks offering a new, potentially lethal weapon to abusive men whose partners have been diagnosed with life-threatening or terminal illnesses.”
The Scottish Government’s evidence shows that, as we continue to have a hidden population of victims of abuse and coercion in Scotland, it is inevitable that that population will include individuals who are or become terminally ill. Abusive relationships do not end after diagnosis.
Although I recognise that those who support the introduction of assisted dying are eager to see legal change, we cannot and should not ignore the serious and real threat posed to vulnerable people through coercion.
Given the extent to which domestic abuse remains so prevalent in our society, coupled with the continued low rates of disclosure and the challenges of detecting coercion, it is inevitable that coerced deaths will occur if the Parliament agrees to the bill.
Therefore, to those members who remain torn about the bill, I respectfully say this: do not back it if there is any seed of doubt in your mind. Remember that there is no room for uncertainty when it comes to life and death. I urge members to vote against the bill at decision time.