Chamber and committees

I completely agree, and I am trying to set out some of those considerations.

We have already heard much about safeguarding, be it in the context of coercion, disabled people or the aged. That consideration is necessary; we have not always focused on safeguarding in the way that we should have done for other bills. We have also heard some deeply personal stories of suffering, all of which I am sympathetic to, having seen my mother die of breast cancer.

However, we are, first and foremost, legislators. This place must be relevant, and many Scots are calling for the bill to be given a fair hearing. In preparation for this debate, I revisited some of the debate at Westminster that took place when I was a member there, in particular the compelling and passionate speech of Dr Philippa Whitford, a valued colleague and a breast surgeon for many years, who spoke movingly of her experience over decades of palliative care. However, we know that palliative care cannot address all suffering, so this is indeed about choices—not about the choice to die, for that is removed, but a choice about how to die. It is about allowing people choices over the manner of their death, thereby giving them agency and choice.

We have heard much talk of a slippery slope, which almost suggests an impending moral breakdown or a threat to civilised society, but surely a bad death—by which I mean a type of death that is prescribed by others and done to you—is not civilised. Surely the real slippery slope is when inadequate policy responses allow for assisted dying to happen behind the scenes. I do not consider ever-increasing sedation, which occurs frequently, as affording dignity, because all choice and agency are removed.

Is the choice, then, about being inhumane or humane? We can consider that from the perspective of human exceptionalism: the belief, held by many, that humans as animals on this earth have a higher value than other animals. However, surely it is a paradox that a result of that perceived value is to insist that humans suffer more.

Many of the people who are speaking against assisted dying today are people of faith. Historically, many religions see suffering, death and dying as ways to seek or confirm spirituality. Jesus was required to choose suffering. However, what of the vast majority of society who reject religion? We are now a majority secular society. Our outlook is ever changing. The Hippocratic oath set out the long-standing approach of the medical profession, but that, too, has evolved. The original Hippocratic oath noted that doctors should not cause abortion, but people mostly now accept the right of others to choose that path and the right of medical practitioners to carry it out.

On balance and all things considered, I will vote yes at stage 1. I, too, have concerns that I want to see addressed at stages 2 and 3, but we must have a proper debate. Adding my voice—adding your voice—to allow the bill to pass at stage 1 will do that.

This is arguably the most important debate in which we will all participate during this parliamentary session. I thank Liam McArthur and all members who have spoken thus far for their contributions.

Members will be aware of my interest in ethics. I am grateful to Professor Richard Huxtable for setting out an ethical approach to the matter. He notes that some people believe that

“the law should reflect … that choice matters, suffering matters and consistency matters”,

whereas others, who hold opposing views, simply state that “life matters”. In his essay in the book, “The Reality of Assisted Dying: Understanding the Issues”, Professor Huxtable sets out a proposed pathway that is slow and cautious, that signposts choices and that checks the perimeters and leaves no one behind. I think that that is a sensible approach for us all.

My first point is about harm. To do nothing on the issue is already causing harm; to do something might also cause harm. No vote that we can cast will guarantee that no harm will be done. A vote against assisted dying will mean that many people will continue to die a slow, lingering death with, as they see it, no quality of life. They will be condemned to suffer at the behest of society, regardless of the quality of their palliative care. A vote for assisted dying will mean that some people are likely to die prematurely and, at worst, will feel compelled to make that choice because of external pressure, from whatever quarter.

Since the agency was set up six years ago, there has been a quite remarkable delivery of 15 benefits. What assurances can the cabinet secretary give about the available capacity at Social Security Scotland, particularly given the transfer of some 66,000 disability living allowance recipients to Scottish adult disability living allowance? What progress has been made in approving accessibility of key performance indicator data in order to assist with the improved scrutiny of how Social Security Scotland is functioning overall?

To ask the Scottish Government what assessment it has made to ensure the timely delivery of benefits by Social Security Scotland. (S6O-04638)

It looks like you want to come in, Victoria—am I right?

I also went to Bearsden academy, but I will not indulge myself by asking Ian Rogers which teacher he was referring to.

I want to pick up on something that Peter Proud mentioned. I completely agree with what you are saying. I did a music degree and worked as a professional musician for quite a long time. I then did a master’s in IT and ended up in project management in that sector, where I worked my way up the tree.

At that time, that was not typical, but there is now a much clearer understanding that the meta skills that people develop while doing a creative arts degree are transferable. That is my view, because I have been down that path, but I want to explore with you whether you agree with that and whether you think that that is recognised. To return to our questioning about skills provisioning, is there provision for that complex pathway, based on what you see in your software journey?

Peter Proud, I will bring you in next. You are obviously in an entirely different sector and location.

I will leave it there, but I might come back in later.

There is a lot of logic and making sense of complex problems.

You have introduced a lot of themes that I think other members will want to come in on.