The Official Report is a written record of public meetings of the Parliament and committees.
All Official Reports of meetings in the Debating Chamber of the Scottish Parliament.
All Official Reports of public meetings of committees.
Displaying 3461 contributions
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
Last week, a group of GPs in my constituency asked me a question that I was not able to answer. They asked whether there would be a duty for someone expressing that conscientious objection to refer a person requesting assisted dying to another assessor. Can you give me a definitive answer?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
We will come to questions on that later. If we do not cover that, I will be happy to come back to you.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
Good morning, and welcome to the fourth meeting in 2025 of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee.
The first item on our agenda today is to take evidence as part of the committee’s scrutiny of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill at stage 1 from the member in charge of the bill, Liam McArthur MSP. I welcome Liam McArthur, who is joined by Claudia Bennett, a senior solicitor in legal services at the Scottish Parliament; Nick Hawthorne, who is a senior clerk in the non-Government bills unit of the Scottish Parliament; and Dr Amanda Ward, who is adviser to Liam McArthur.
Before we move to questions, I invite Mr McArthur to make a brief opening statement.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
Okay, but the financial memorandum did not include any other profession that might be involved in the care of someone who was accessing assisted dying.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
The status of assisted dying as a reasonable treatment option in Scotland is unclear and there have been calls for that to be addressed directly in the bill. If assisted dying is considered to be a reasonable treatment option, doctors would have a duty to discuss it with patients in appropriate situations, regardless of any conscientious objection to the practice that they might have. How do you respond to that?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
Do you think that the bill needs tightening up to define what the phrase means, to address the concerns that were raised at that evidence session about people travelling to Scotland and setting up a temporary address here in order to access assisted dying?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
We will move straight to questions, beginning with Emma Harper.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
The bill would require someone to be “ordinarily resident” in Scotland for 12 months before they would be eligible for assisted dying. Last week, in giving evidence, Police Scotland raised questions about what is meant by the term “ordinarily resident”. I am keen to explore why that term was used and what “ordinarily resident” means in the bill.
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
In view of the letter from the finance committee and its determinations, what the Scottish Government has put on record and the omissions that you have alluded to today in relation to your financial memorandum, will you be looking to review your financial memorandum?
Health, Social Care and Sport Committee
Meeting date: 4 February 2025
Clare Haughey
Several respondents to the consultation on the bill noted that there is no provision for challenging or reviewing decisions that are made by doctors on whether someone’s illness meets the definition in the bill of terminal illness, whether they have capacity to make the decision or whether they have been coerced. The Edinburgh Napier University centre for mental health practice, policy and law research submitted that it was
“concerned at the lack of any accessible mechanism by which the decision of a doctor can be appealed or independently reviewed by the courts.”
Again, is that something that you considered? Now that the bill has been under some scrutiny, would you consider amending it in that regard?