by Bill Heaney
Members of the Scottish Parliament vote 69 to 57 against legalising assisted dying. One member abstained.
The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill had proposed that terminally-ill, mentally competent adults could seek medical help to end their lives
During an emotionally charged four hour debate, the bill’s proposer, Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur, ABOVE, had urged MSPs to have the “voices of dying Scots at the front of their minds when they vote”
Former Conservative MSP Jeremy Balfour said passing the bill would be “opening a Pandora’s Box” and that there can be “no meaningful protection” against coercion
Last week MSPs voted to put a six-month or less prognosis requirement on people wanting an assisted death.
The bill would have given terminally ill adults with less than six months left to live the right to seek medical assistance to end their lives
A number of MSPs who had backed the bill in principle at an earlier stage, such as Dumbarton, Helensburgh and Lomond MSP Jackie Baillie, decided they still had too many concerns to support it
The Lib Dem MSP proposing the legislation, Liam McArthur, said after the vote that he was “deeply disappointed”
Independent MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy spoke of her relief and said disabled people would take strength from the vote.
The debate heard a number of passionate pleas for and against the bill, with some MSPs in tears and others saying this showed the parliament in the best light
Opponents raised several concerns about the bill – particularly fears of people being pressured into an assisted death.
McArthur accused those who rejected the bill of a “woefully inadequate response to the suffering and trauma experienced by dying Scots and their families”.
Following the vote, Omar Afzal, director of public affairs at the Scottish Association of Mosques, said: “Today’s vote is not a moment for celebration, but for reflection.
“MSPs were asked to consider three fundamental questions: whether vulnerable people could be fully protected from coercion, whether healthcare professionals were adequately safeguarded, and whether this bill could truly guarantee dignity at the end of life. On each of these, serious and unresolved concerns remained.”
Pam Duncan-Glancy, right, said she was proud of the way the debate was handled
A visibly emotional Pam Duncan-Glancy MSP spoke of her “relief” at the result of the vote.
She told BBC Scotland she was “proud” of the Scottish Parliament and the way the bill was handled.
“I know this was a deeply personal decision for everyone in the chamber today,” she said.
“But for disabled people across the country watching on, I think they will take some strength in the vote.”
Liam McArthur, whose member’s bill for assisted dying has just been defeated, thanks his staff and the terminally ill Scots and their families who have told their stories.
“I am sorry that parliament has denied you this compassionate choice tonight,” he says.
“However, for now we should be proud that this is by far the most votes that an assisted dying bill has ever secured in the Scottish Parliament. This is not a conversation that is going away.
“For so long as dying Scots continue to suffer as a result of the lack of choice and safety afforded to them by the current law, I’m certain that it will be an issue in front of parliament once more.”
Readers of The Dumbarton Democrat, have a special interest in how our constituency MSP, Jackie Baillie, voted.
She told the chamber which was full of MSPs and members of the public: “This is the most consequential bill of this parliamentary session, and it is probably the most consequential bill of the devolution era.
“Although I will vote against the bill at decision time, I want to join everybody across the chamber in commending Liam McArthur for his approach, his openness with colleagues, irrespective of political persuasion, and his engagement with lots of professional organisations and families who have experienced difficult deaths. His approach has been second to none.
“This is the third vote on assisted dying that I have participated in. The two previous bills, which were brought by Margo MacDonald and Patrick Harvie, were wide in scope, with few safeguards, leaving the door open to unintended consequences. As a result, clinicians at the time opposed the legislation, and both bills failed at stage 1 by a considerable margin. By contrast, this bill has taken a much narrower approach, and many medical and palliative care bodies have remained neutral as a result.
“Since the bill was first proposed, I have heard very moving stories from those who believe that assisted dying could have prevented unnecessary suffering and from those who want agency at the end of life. I have also listened to the concerns of disabled people and those who fear that assisted dying could have led to a loved one’s unnecessary death. I cannot do justice to their testimony in four minutes, but their stories stay with us all.
“In dealing with the bill, I worked with Hospice UK, Children’s Hospices Across Scotland—otherwise known as CHAS—the Royal College of Nursing and the Royal College of Psychiatrists to improve the safeguards in the bill. Some of my amendments were accepted, and I thank colleagues for that. I recognise that there has been progress from where the bill started.
“There is a fundamental problem with the bill, however. The Scottish Government rightly advised that the employment issues covered by the bill were not legislatively competent, so the bill can become law only with a section 104 agreement between the Scottish and UK Governments. Provisions allowing protection for staff were therefore completely removed from the bill last week, with the promise that they will be put back in after the bill has passed. That was a watershed moment for many members. The UK Government has taken a position of neutrality that mirrors that of the Scottish Government, but I was genuinely concerned that the cabinet secretary could not guarantee to me, when I questioned him, that all the safeguarding provisions would be replicated through a section 104 agreement. For many MSPs, that was the equivalent of asking them to vote in the dark—and for that to come so late in the day was problematic.
“There are questions about whether the bill was competent even on introduction. Consequently, it came as no surprise that the Royal College of Psychiatrists changed its view from being neutral to opposing the bill, as did the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in Scotland. Many of us have received emails from clinicians expressing significant concern on that point.
“We have all been weighing up the views of constituents: the views of those who will have to implement the bill if it is passed and the views of families who have lost loved ones in difficult circumstances. In all this, our job is to consider the impact of the bill. That is unemotional; it is about analysis. In doing that, I have come to the conclusion—regretfully—that I cannot support the bill as it stands.”