Chamber and committees

That is fine. I will not ask the next question, because it has been answered.

It would be helpful to understand why you take that position.

Have the codes been updated often in the past 20 years?

In relation to our international standing, we have heard that, if the power was removed, our legislation would rank even better in the world. What are your thoughts on that? Do you not want to see that progress?

Proposals in the Railways Bill would require the UK Secretary of State for Transport to set an overall target of a 75 per cent increase in the amount of freight moved by rail by 2050. I am keen to understand what engagement the cabinet secretary has had with the UK Government on rail freight. Does she agree that maintaining open access for rail freight companies is the best way to ensure that goods can be moved more effectively across Scotland?

Surely you realise that the relationship that a patient has with their healthcare practitioner, such as their GP, is unique. That trust is unparalleled. It is very rare for people to turn up at their GP or their consultant armed with information about the options available to them. If doctors were to raise assisted suicide unprompted, it would mean the complete devastation of that relationship—it is not a neutral act. Jackie Baillie spoke about young people at length. In my heart, I just feel that I cannot imagine how there could be any trust between me and a healthcare practitioner if they brought that up with me unprompted. You must understand that challenge.

I hope that the member might consider it somewhat ironic that, in earlier amendments, we were looking to collate data on side effects of these drugs and how patients interacted with them while carrying out their own deaths, and the challenge with the dissemination of such information was: when might it not be inappropriate?

We are talking here about public dissemination, not dissemination through the sorts of clinical channels that exist right now to allow people to move on with medical decisions and to share information. As I have said, this is more about attempting to follow the Online Safety Act 2023; after all, you do not find many clinicians sharing their medical practice on TikTok.

As for Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment on advertising, we will want to ensure that we prohibit the dissemination of information on services that are provided, as well as the substances, because you might start to get inappropriate advertisements in that respect. Indeed, one can envisage some of the gross and inappropriate advertising that might materialise if that is not prohibited. I am talking about both subtle and direct advertising, because marketing is extremely powerful. We see it all around us, including in the sort of influencing that you get on social media, and we really must do everything that we can to prohibit that sort of thing.

With that, I conclude my remarks.

It is aimed at professionals who are involved in the medical and scientific field. I would say yes to your clarification: it is aimed at those who are seeking to—it is challenging for me to say this—make changes to the substances that are involved in assisted dying. My earlier amendments were about some of the substances’ challenging side effects and understanding how all the substances interact with various individuals—because, after all, we are all unique in how we interact with medicines.

Yes, that subsection is there to allow the appropriate sharing of information—not for it to be shared in ways that might be deemed inappropriate and through which it could be used by the vulnerable individuals who I alluded to in my commentary.

I do agree. Every possible safeguard should be included in the bill. I have sat in committee both today and last week, watching safeguard after safeguard get turned down, and I am gravely concerned with the direction that the bill is going in.

Experience overseas shows that it is not true that the substance will always work. In countries where assisted suicide has been legalised, there are documented cases where death has not occurred, where people have awoken hours later or where they have lingered in distress. When we legislate for death, we must also legislate for when death does not come, and not doing so is of great concern to me.

Amendment 181 sets out a clear and humane procedure for such cases. I hate talking about such things in such a pragmatic, emotionless way, but my amendment would require a medical professional to take all reasonable steps to preserve life, including, where possible, reversing the effects of the substance, unless the adult at that time and with capacity refuses such an intervention. It would also require that the entire incident be recorded in writing, including details of the substance that is used and the sequence of events.

Amendment 182 would make it explicit that any person who administers further substances to bring about death after the initial attempt has failed will be subject to the existing criminal law on homicide. This is not a theoretical, but a moral, concern. When the state authorises the taking of a life, it must also face the consequences when that act fails. If we are to cross this line as a Parliament, we must at least ensure that, when death does not occur, life is protected, suffering is not compounded and the law does not turn its face away. Amendments 181 and 182 are, frankly, about confronting the reality and seeking to preserve what little humanity we can in a bill that risks abandoning it.

Finally, amendment 183, which I have already talked briefly about, would make it a requirement to record any complications that might arise after taking the substances. It speaks to the uncomfortable gap between how this bill imagines assisted suicide will work and how it has worked in practice elsewhere.

The bill proceeds on the assumption that the substance that is used to end life will do so cleanly, peacefully and without complication, but that assumption is false. The evidence from overseas tells a very different story. In countries where assisted suicide has been legalised, there have been cases of vomiting, choking, fluid filling people’s lungs and, in some instances, of the substance simply failing to end the person’s life. Despite those realities, the bill provides no mechanism to record or report when such complications occur. That is, frankly, an extraordinary omission.

If the Parliament is to sanction the deliberate ending of life, at the very least, it must ensure that the methods used are subject to proper scrutiny and improvement. Every other medical procedure undergoes that. My amendment would do precisely that, and it would require a medical professional to record any complications, adverse reactions or unintended effects arising from the administration of the approved substance in the adult’s medical records, and that an anonymised report be submitted to Public Health Scotland. It is an attempt to limit the harm that the bill might cause.

If Parliament insists on creating a system for assisted suicide, it has a moral duty to ensure that the process is safe, transparent and as humane as possible. Turning a blind eye to complications is not compassion; it is indifference. I want to confront the reality, not idealise it.