Chamber and committees

I would say to any individual—those who are very supportive of Mr McArthur’s intentions with this legislation and others who are deeply concerned—that the Parliament needs to make legislation for everyone in society. Whether the bill goes on to the statute books or not, there will be many people who are deeply disappointed, worried and concerned. I do not envy Mr Gulhane’s committee’s challenge. It must take a balanced approach to find the correct legislative position on this. There are no easy answers, and I do not pretend that there are.

My proposed addition to the list of criteria in section 3(1) would have the effect that a person is eligible to be lawfully provided with assistance to end their own life only if they have a prognosis of six months or less to live. As we have heard from other members, I, too, do not pretend that any of this is easy, and it is clear that there are challenges regarding any timeframe for a prognosis. However, I firmly believe that having a timeframe is preferable to leaving the matter completely open ended.

I respectfully say to Mr McArthur that I do not agree with how that has been framed. In the stage 1 debate, I raised the issue of palliative care, as many other members did. At the subsequent meeting of the cross-party group on palliative care, I did not see members rushing to the CPG to declare their absolute support for how we expand all that. That simply did not happen.

Talking about assisted dying has caused many members to suddenly realise that we should be talking openly and honestly—perhaps on a cross-party basis—about the fact that much more has to happen on palliative care, including discussing how it should be resourced and the choices that we have to make as a Parliament and as parties within that Parliament. All that has been raised because the bill has been introduced, but it should never have been thus, Mr McArthur; we should all have been interested in palliative care, which has merits in its own right, irrespective of whether there is a bill on assisted dying. However, I absolutely acknowledge that talking about this issue is shining a light on palliative care. Passage of the bill is not required to secure additional funding for such care, but I acknowledge Mr McArthur’s point.

The final thing that I will say, given that Jeremy Balfour’s amendments in this group relate to vulnerabilities and capacity, is that, later, we will consider a group about vulnerable adults, at which time we can look more at coercion, vulnerabilities and individuals who are at risk. That might be a more appropriate point to have that conversation on a more rounded basis. I have no other reflections.

You are very popular this morning, Mr McArthur. I get the issues with having a timeframe in relation to prognosis. However, would Mr McArthur also accept that there are significant issues with having no timeframe at all and that wording such as “advanced”, “progressive”, “unable to recover” and

“reasonably be expected to cause their premature death”

could also all be seen to be very broad brush strokes? Where does the member sit between the open, broad-brush-stroke approach that is in the bill and the efforts to be more narrow and specific in the various amendments that we are discussing today, including my set of amendments in the group?

I appreciate the exchange between Mr McMillan and Mr McArthur. It is important that Mr McArthur says that he wants to align with the GMC guidance as it is. If Mr McMillan decides not to move his amendments, one solution would be to put the GMC guidance—we all agree that it is the correct guidance—in the bill in order to give the certainty that is required, rather than finding a workaround. If the definition exists, why not put it in the bill and apply it?

Primarily, I want to reassure Mr McArthur, notwithstanding his lack of support for my set of amendments, that the commencement order was not intended to cause any undue delay. Those were not wrecking amendments in the slightest. The underlying principle that I adhere to here is that we should decide what regulation looks like and bring it into force before assisted dying begins. Therefore, it is a sequential amendment rather than a blocking amendment. That is an important point to make.

I answer that in two ways. The first relates to Mr Balfour’s intervention earlier. Someone who may be a confident, enabled individual could get a terminal diagnosis, and everything that follows from that could lead to that person having less self-worth. That should not be so, Mr Harvie, but that could happen. They could have adult family members with caring roles for their primary care needs. They may think that they are a burden on those individuals, and their view of their own self-worth may be impacted by that. That is an anecdotal potential example, which I probably should not give, because that is not the intention of amendment 139. The intention of the amendment is to be consistent with how the medical profession and the General Medical Council define coercion. That is not my view in relation to how coercion should be defined. A definition exists in all other areas, and it seems to be remiss not to have it in this area of life and death.

I absolutely accept Mr Harvie’s point that it would be better to understand that a bit more. I agree with him, but I ask the rhetorical question of why we would use the GMC definition of coercion for everything else but not use it on assisted dying. My amendment would simply make sure that we are consistent in our approach.

It is also a very good answer, Skye, which is why I pushed for answers to the question. We on the committee are still forming our views; just because we ask a question in a certain way, that does not mean that that is our underlying view. We are trying to form our views as we take evidence on the legislation, so that was a perfectly acceptable answer.

I will suspend the meeting for another five minutes or so, if that would be helpful.

Politicians avoid answering questions all the time, Frances, so I am not criticising you for not coming down on one side or another, but—

That is helpful. Skye Allan mentioned that the Scottish Youth Parliament has not looked, in particular, at other ways in which the policy outcomes could be secured without legislation. Skye or Kristers Lukins may wish to comment on whether the national performance framework could be used to see what the Scottish Parliament wants to happen in relation to this work. It is an opportunity for either of you to add something at this point, if you wish to do so.

Thank you. I did not want to take you off on a tangent, so I am sorry for that. I just wanted to give you an opportunity to clarify what you meant.