Chamber and committees

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I do not know whether the member is worried by this, but, for example, in British Columbia, Delta Hospice Society has now had its funding completely removed because it is not willing to offer assisted suicide. Does he recognise that experience in other jurisdictions shows that there is a real threat to charities and people who provide good services that they could lose their funding? Does he recognise that they need to be protected in some way?

Does the member have concerns about future proofing the bill, if it is passed? As funding for hospices is already under pressure, future Governments and Parliaments might look at the act and fund only hospices that also provide such assistance, unless they have an absolute opt-out.

I do not think that that is the key issue. A person can believe lots of things, but it is about what they do in practice. Amendment 193 and those that were lodged by Daniel Johnson and Stuart McMillan give people clarity. We are not saying that somebody cannot believe that assisted suicide is right; all that we are saying is that they cannot practise it in particular institutions. We are not in any way telling people what they can or cannot believe; we are saying that, if they work for a certain care home, they will not be able to carry out the procedure in that home.

The advantage of that is that an older person going to a care home or someone going to a hospice would know exactly what services the institution is going to provide, and they could make the appropriate choice. If I think that, at some point, I might have a terminal illness, I might look for a particular care home that allows me to make that choice. The same is true for other institutions.

I think that I was just asking for the Government to address some of the very specific points that have been raised this morning.

Obviously, I am coming late to the party in speaking on the amendments, and it has been interesting to hear from Mr McArthur and other members.

I come first to my amendment 190. I appreciate others’ remarks about the changes that have been suggested, particularly by Mr McArthur, but I still have concerns that, even if the amendments were agreed to, the provisions would be inadequate and there would still be encroachment on individual conscience. I am concerned that to refer someone is not a neutral act; it is participation in the process. It makes the objector an essential link in the chain that leads to another person’s death. That is not conscientious objection; it is compelled complicity. If we are serious about respecting moral diversity in our health service, we cannot reduce conscience to a paperwork exercise. A doctor or nurse who believes that assisted suicide is wrong must not be forced to facilitate it indirectly. To do so would be to empty the right of conscience of any real meaning.

My amendment goes further than other amendments that we have debated in that it includes not only doctors, nurses and pharmacists, but administrators, who will have to do a lot of work behind the scenes. Even with the amendments lodged by others, if I were a secretary or a personal assistant working for someone in this area, I would be legally required to participate in parts of the process, including referral, recommendation and administration. That means that those who do not agree with assisted suicide would be forced to do something that goes against their moral conscience.

The convener will kill me for saying this, but I am happy to do so. That was perhaps an inappropriate word to use.

I would draw a distinction. Perhaps we will need to come back to this at stage 3. If it was a hospice or a physical building that had the opt-out, I would say that they would be excluded from doing that.

More and more people are choosing to die at home, and their care package might be run by a hospice. If an individual decided later on that they wanted to die at home through assisted suicide—assisted dying—that would be different, because the medical professional would be coming into their home. However, an organisation must be able to keep its ethos.

One of my biggest concerns is that, as with all legislation, we are not just deciding for tomorrow, next year or the year after; we are deciding for future generations. We all know the financial pressures that hospices are facing, and 50 per cent of their money comes from the Scottish Government. My worry would be that future Governments—not this Government or the next one—would say that hospices would get the funding only if the procedure was offered as part of their service. There would be nothing, as the bill is drafted, or even with the amendments that Mr McArthur has lodged, to prevent a Government from doing that. That is my big concern

We should put in place a safeguard so that organisations that offer brilliant services—we all agree about that—would not be forced to do something that they are philosophically opposed to or miss out on funding. That is where I am coming from.

The issue is about protecting the individual. Wherever the claim comes from and whatever proceedings follow, it is about ensuring that the individual who is being accused does not have to prove the case, and that it is for the other party, whoever that is, to prove the case.

I move on to amendment 193, which is, in some ways, similar to the amendments from Stuart McMillan and Daniel Johnson. I would be deeply concerned if we were to say to hospices and other charitable organisations whose ethical framework defines their care as “life affirming” that they had to go through this procedure. To compel them to participate or risk losing public funding—as we have heard with regard to Switzerland—would violate their moral integrity and betray the trust of those they serve. The amendment seeks to put that right by effectively expanding section 18.

If healthcare providers are going to be exempt, surely hospices, hospitals, care homes and hostels that formally have ethical, religious or philosophical policies that refuse to permit assisted suicide must be allowed to opt out. If not, we are going to see hospices or organisations not taking on certain individuals so that they are not in breach of the law.

We could also see the reverse, with people who want care or help—

Will the member take an intervention?

Let me just finish this sentence.

People who want help would not be taken in because providers do not want to have to move them or do something else.