By Bill Heaney
Previous attempts to change Scottish law around end-of-life assistance have not been successful.
And when this controversial issue comes before the Scottish Parliament in May, it will be the third time Holyrood has voted on the issue of assisted dying.
There was a similar proposal in 2004 that didn’t get enough support to be introduced.
Independent MSP Margo Macdonald brought it forward in 2010, with these rejected by 85 votes to 16 at stage one. A subsequent attempt by Dumbarton man, Green MSP Patrick Harvie, to pass legislation was defeated by 82 votes to 36 in 2015.
Since then there’s been two Scottish elections, Westminster has started examining the issue following a bill introduced by Labour MP Kim Leadbetter and assisted dying passed its final legislative vote on the Isle of Man.
At Holyrood, this will be the first time that 86 of the 129 MSPs will have cast a vote on the issue.
That is only if they all turn up, of course, and there are bound to be a number of abstentions.
Critics argue that allowing assisted dying in limited cases could lead to broader, more dangerous implications – such as extending it to non-terminal patients and people with mental illness, or those who feel they are a burden on their families or the healthcare system.
Campaigners against domestic violence have also warned that proposed new assisted dying laws could provide a “potentially lethal weapon” for abusers.
Pam Duncan-Glancy, the first permanent wheelchair user in the history of the Scottish Parliament, wrote an open letter to MSPs saying disabled people are “frightened” by the Bill.
She said the Bill could make it easier for disabled people to access help to die than to live.
“I felt I had to write a letter on behalf of a lot of people who are quite disempowered,” she said.
“It’s a deeply concerning issue for disabled people and others across the country. If I don’t say it, if not me, who?”
The Glasgow region MSP, who is also the party’s education spokesperson, rejected arguments from proponents of the legislation that it contains sufficient safeguards to protect all people.
She said the Bill would not be able to protect against “coercion, abuse, internalised ableism, oppression, and a lack of capacity in existing systems”.
Glancy added: “One of the things we have to remember is the people most worried about this legislation are the people furthest from participation in politics. It’s difficult for them to have their voices heard.
“I do worry about the legislation, but I think there are colleagues still making up their minds.
“For me, that’s a good position to talk to them, have deep conversations and explain what the concerns about this sort of legislation.
“I think there is still time to convince people this is not the right thing to do.
“In this job, you make decisions on an hourly basis, not even daily – every decision you make has consequences. This will have huge consequences. People will be taking it very seriously.”Liam McArthur, who introduced the Bill to parliament, said there has been “a lot of changes” since proposals were last brought to parliament a decade ago.
“I’ve said from the outset that the political mood is very different, not least because many colleagues come to this issue with their own personal experience – they’ve lost a family member, a close friend, or (witnessed) a bad death.
“We’ve seen international evidence of states and countries around the world introducing similar legislation safety and successfully. The medical profession has also moved to a position of neutrality rather than opposition.”
But McArthur acknowledged assisted dying is “not an easy issue to wrestle with.”
He added: “I think it’s very clear MSPs across parties are taking this issue seriously. They are taking their time to consider evidence, to speak to constituents and others with an interest in this debate.
“I think the fact it’s spared the party political knockabout is very much welcomed. This means we can have a fairly passionate argument on the basis of principle and around concerns and questions, and do so in a way that does justice to the sensitivity and seriousness of the issue.”