I am aware of medical professionals who will tell you that the medications that you have listed can induce vomiting and all sorts of concerning side effects. Any medication can do that, depending on the individual. The risk could be one in 10, one in 100, one in 1,000 or one in 100,000, but there are risks for anyone who is taking medicine of any kind. Frankly, Ms Harper, you should be aware of that.

Oh, my goodness. The convener used my Sunday name. [Laughter.] I assure the committee that I have just one amendment in the group.

I thank Mr McArthur for referring to my amendment 158 following some of the remarks about how patients must have as much information as possible and how the nature of the options and their implications must be provided to them. My amendment 158 would strengthen the safeguards by ensuring that applicants are fully informed about the potential side effects and risks, including the pain that is associated with the substances that would be used in assisted dying. As we have heard, the period of reflection will begin when the person makes their first declaration, and the assessment that is carried out by the co-ordinating registered medical practitioner is to take place as soon as is reasonably practical after the first declaration is made. At that point, they must inform the person of various matters. My amendment would add specifics to the various matters that are listed in the bill.

I believe that my amendment addresses a serious moral and medical flaw, which is the bill’s presumption that the substances that are used in assisted suicide will always deliver a swift and painless death—that is not the case. Everyone is different, and the way in which they interact with medication will be individual. The bill’s assumption is not supported by evidence. Experience from other countries shows that such substances can have severe side effects. In places where assisted suicide is legal, there have been reports of vomiting, choking and fluid in the lungs—

Would Ms Harper like to intervene?

Okay. Thank you, convener.

The bill as drafted does not require individuals to be informed of those risks before making their decisions. It merely states that the registered medical practitioner who is performing the assessment under section 6 of the bill must advise and explain to the terminally ill adult matters relating to their diagnosis and prognosis and the available treatment and care options, as well as clearly explaining that taking those substances will end their life. After all, that is why they are there.

The omission undermines one of the core principles that the Parliament should uphold, which is informed consent. My amendment would correct that by requiring the co-ordinating medical practitioner to inform the adult of any potential side effects or complications, including the risk of pain, as I have already said, and to be satisfied that the adult has understood them. That would ensure that people are given not simply a choice, but an honest choice. It is not about endorsing assisted suicide or not; it is about recognising the reality that, if the Parliament passes the bill, we have a duty to minimise harm and prevent any unnecessary suffering. Even those who support the principle of assisted suicide should want the public to know what they are choosing—not the idealised version, but the reality as it has played out elsewhere.

I have one amendment in the group, which is amendment 158.

I am not aware of the specifics that you have raised, Mr FitzPatrick, but why not put it into the bill? We are doing something that is really challenging for many people around the table, and the bill might pass at stage 3. I want every safeguard in place, and I want full consent to be given by anyone who considers ending their life. We must ensure that that is the case, and it is our obligation to do that.

If the bill passes, we cannot allow people to walk into the process blind. Amendment 158 is about damage limitation. It is completely about ensuring that 100 per cent informed consent is given. It is a safeguard against ignorance and a reminder that, even when we legislate for death, the Parliament still bears responsibility for life.

You do not think that they would be viewed as delaying tactics or with suspicion by the requester.

Okay. Does anyone else want to comment?

If the proposed amendment to the general entitlement does not alter the position of disclosure under the Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002, how might it still help to shift organisational culture or public perception around transparency?

I am struggling to hear you, Alex. You are going in and out. I will ask Juliet Swann that question, which I hope you can pick up.

Public authorities say that they already operate with that presumption of disclosure and are open and transparent. Why, then, do users of FOISA often feel that exemptions are used as a default in order to withhold information?