Assisted Dying Bill

Like many of you, I have been following the passage of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill through it's various stages in Holyrood and have spent what time I can over the last two weeks watching the amendment debates and the final debate and decision yesterday.

I have never made it a secret that I support the principal of choice in adults that are already facing the imminent end of their days. Those that know they are dying and they wish to choose their time and place of passing away peacefully, pain free, in the presence of their loved ones, and with dignity.

Through the original wording and the amendments made, the final bill had safeguards to ensure that only those normally resident in Scotland, registered with a medical practice here, with the capacity to make the request and having a terminal prognosis within 6 months would be eligible. The request would have had to be assessed and approved by two doctors. There would have to be a first declaration, medical assessments, a reflection period and then a second declaration. The bill also made it clear what a terminal diagnosis is - it is not about being disabled or having a mental disability.

Additionally, the medications required would have to be self-administered. So that final decision and act would always be with the person themselves.

Continued fears of coercion, feelings of individuals being a burden to their families and calls for better palliative care all came out in the debate yesterday. I do not think that this is evidenced from the schemes around the world that allow people to have that final choice on their own passing. If anything, anecdotally, families are more likely to be trying to stop the person taking this option. And if we are so concerned about coercion here, why are we not doing more in all the other parts of life where coercion exists - abusive marriages, reproductive decisions, finances, care arrangements and many, many other personal choices through life.

And yes, we do need to invest more in palliative care and ensure that everyone who chooses to use it, has access whether that be at home or at a hospice facility. But it is not either / or - we need both.

Ultimately, it has to be people's own choice. No one is asking everyone to end their own life when the time is near. Many will choose not to, but does that entitle us to remove that choice from others? In my opinion, no it does not.

Now to the intricacies of the competence of the legislation as presented. During Stage Two, when amendments were tabled and approved, the area of competence around employment law and the ability to legislate for worker rights (which is reserved to Westminster, despite calls for it to be devolved). If included, it was feared that Westminster could step in and scupper the whole Bill as being outside the legislative competence of devolved government and subject to a decision by the Supreme Court - we've been there before. So the amendments essentially removed the employment rights of medical personnel, their training and protection. Originally, it had included the right for doctors, nurses and institutions to "opt out" of providing assisted dying. This led to Royal Colleges, the British Medical Association and the personnel themselves withdrawing support for the Bill. When we talk of choice, we need to allow those individuals or institutions providing the care to have the option to not provide it if against their beliefs or conscience.

The Scottish Government did engage with the UK Government to resolve these issues. Westminster had said that it would consider how it could extend employment rights protections through a Section 104 process - but only if the bill passed on Tuesday. A Section 104 would have no oversight by MSPs in Holyrood - they would not be able to have any influence on what those rights or the training requirements would look like. It would be a take it or leave it situation on the rights of Scottish doctors and nurses by Westminster.

This meant that the Bill in front of MSPs yesterday was essentially incomplete and decided that they could not vote for this when employment rights became a secondary legislation by a different body.

I believe that if it were not for this Section 104 element the Bill would have passed yesterday, albeit narrowly. Today, in the cold light of day we have to face the fact that unless we have the full powers of an independent state that is not beholden to the overlord of Westminster, we are going to continually come up against these issues.

In an independent Scotland we can hold a referendum to ensure that the Scottish people decide this issue. On 7th May, be sure to use both votes for the SNP to ensure a majority in Holyrood so we can initiate that final push for independence and take full control of all our legislation, as supported by the Scottish public.