Chamber and committees

I will just carry on, thank you. Oh, sorry—I beg your pardon. Yes, I will take the intervention.

This has been a difficult speech to write, and it will be difficult to deliver.

Unlike some members whom we might hear from in the chamber today, I, thankfully, do not have personal experience of any of my loved ones suffering a bad death. However, I strongly support the bill because I believe in giving terminally ill people the right to choose a dignified and peaceful death. I cannot, in good conscience, deny them that right. I say to those who are conflicted on what decision to make today that they do not even have to agree or like what has been proposed in the bill, but I ask that they please do not deny terminally ill people their right to choose.

As co-convener of the cross-party group on end of life choices, I know that the bill represents the culmination of years of meticulous research and cross-sector consultation. I commend the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for its stage 1 report, which was fair and balanced.

The bill is not a leap into the unknown; it is a cautious, evidence-based step forward. Voluntary assisted dying is grounded in international best practice, and it builds on proven models in Australia, the United States and other jurisdictions. It has been developed through extensive consultation with experts and those with lived experience of terminal illness. The framework that it proposes is safe, compassionate and practical.

The decision that members will make today is very personal, and I respect those who feel that they have a dilemma and cannot vote for the general principles. Voluntary assisted dying is not mandatory but a choice, so I can only assume that opposition is based on religious conviction or the fear of coercion.

To address that point directly, international experts, such as Professor Ben White from the Australian centre for health law research, have clearly stated that there is no evidence of people being coerced into choosing assisted dying in countries where it is legal. On the contrary, the evidence—this is Government data, not anecdotal—shows that families often try to dissuade loved ones from choosing assisted dying. American doctor Ryan Spielvogel, who gave evidence at Westminster, told members of Parliament:

“I have never seen a case where I even suspected coercion.”—[Official Report, House of Commons, Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Public Bill Committee, 28 January 2025; c 101, Q76.]

He said that, if anything, it is families who are not ready to let go that put in place emotional roadblocks.

As an additional safeguard, the bill would introduce a new criminal offence of coercion, with a sentence of up to 14 years in prison, which no previous assisted dying bill in Scotland has included.

Does the member acknowledge that it is part of doctors’ everyday practice to recognise coercion—for example, in abortion care or in cases of the withdrawal of treatment? Does he acknowledge that that is part of their work and that extra training will be given in the light of the bill?

I will come on to that shortly. An additional safeguard that the bill introduces is a new criminal offence of coercion, with a sentence of up to 14 years, which no previous such bill has included. Mental capacity and freedom from outside influence are confirmed at every stage, and the person can change their mind at any time.

Doctors are already trained to identify coercion in contexts such as abortion care and treatment withdrawal. That duty exists—it is not unique to the bill but a standard part of ethical medical practice.

It is important to understand that denying people access to voluntary assisted dying does not prevent assisted deaths; it merely pushes them underground. Dr Amanda Ward, a global expert in this field, documented in her PhD thesis numerous examples of amateur assisted deaths in Scotland, some of which were horrific. Relatives of people who help a loved one to end their suffering end up in jail, and deaths occur without there being any safeguards or professional support in place. That is the alternative to the bill: a system that fails the dying, doctors and the law. In essence, what the bill proposes is far safer than the status quo.

On the question of palliative care, there is no conflict—it is not an either/or choice. Public support for that choice is clear. Polling consistently shows that most Scots, across all demographics, support the bill. Liam McArthur has drawn on the expertise of Scottish organisations such as Friends at the End, Dignity in Dying and the Humanist Society. Those groups speak for thousands of their members. Their voices are not abstract; they are rooted in real grief and love and united by a powerful determination to spare others the same heartbreak.

We are in a fortunate position. What sets the bill apart from previous proposals is that many of the concerns that were historically associated with assisted dying can now be addressed with robust evidence. Nearly a decade on from our most recent debate, we are no longer relying on theory—we have substantial international data to inform our decision.

It is our responsibility today to consider the general principles of the bill. It is careful, credible and compassionate, and it reflects the values of a country that believes in dignity, autonomy and evidence-led policy. We have a chance to show the Scottish Parliament at its best: progressive and profoundly compassionate.

It is time: it is time to listen to the voices of dying people and it is time to vote for the general principles of the bill.

Would the member acknowledge that in countries that already have voluntary assisted dying, more than 80 per cent of people are already receiving palliative care or are in hospice care?

Good morning. I want to ask about some of the practicalities that are involved in the proposal, such as timescales and so on.

Unless the petition is ended early, under the bill’s provisions, a recall petition must be open for signing for four weeks. Could it prove problematic to find signing places that are available for that length of time, and are you confident that the staff could be found to undertake the workload during that time?

That was one of my questions, so it is helpful that you have said that.

That is interesting. I will leave that to my colleagues.

I presume that local authorities would be heavily involved in that side of it. They would make signing places available and guide people to them.

As no one else wants to comment on that aspect, I will move on to my next question. Does the timeframe that is proposed in the bill between the date on which a petition officer receives the recall notice and the date on which those who are eligible can start signing the petition seem straightforward to you?