Why I voted against Scotland's Assisted Dying Bill
The Assisted Dying Bill debate touched on many questions, including the role of medical staff, the definition of a terminal illness, and the risk of coercive control
For the past week, Holyrood has been dominated by one topic – the debate on assisted dying. As it’s a free vote, MSPs are not following party orders but their consciences. For many, this is a new experience.
As an MSP first elected in 1999, I have participated in two votes on assisted dying before. Neither of these Bills had sufficient safeguards, leaving the door open to unintended consequences. As a result, the medical establishment opposed the legislation and both Bills failed.
By contrast, this Bill’s sponsor, Liam McArthur, took a narrower approach, and many medical bodies initially chose to remain neutral. His approach has been open and I welcome this, because there’s no doubt it’s a subject that matters deeply to many of my constituents.
READ MORE: Assisted Dying Bill Scotland updates: Follow along for the final vote on this historic bill
Among the happiest years of her life
Since the Bill was first proposed, I’ve heard moving stories from those who believe assisted dying could have ended their loved one’s unnecessary suffering, and I have also listened to those who fear it could lead to a loved one’s unnecessary death.
One constituent wrote to me about his sister, who has suffered from psychotic depression for 45 years, at times refused food and drink, and would likely have accepted the idea of assisted dying. “However,” he wrote, “the last eight years have probably been among the happiest of her life.”
Although I voted against the Bill at Stage One, I promised to engage meaningfully with the legislative process. The debate touched on many questions, including the role of doctors and nurses, the definition of a terminal illness, and the risk of coercive control.
It also took place against a backdrop of pressures on palliative care – leaving the uncomfortable question of whether terminally ill patients will be able to make a completely free choice.
My amendments were developed by organisations including the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Hospice UK, Children’s Hospice Association Scotland (CHAS), the Royal College of Nursing, which all took a neutral attitude to the Bill but sought appropriate safeguards.
Some of my amendments were accepted and others voted down. There is, however, a fundamental problem with the Bill raised at a late stage in the process.
The First Minister advised that the employment issues covered by the Bill were not “legislatively competent”, meaning that it can only become law with a Section 104 order agreed between the Scottish and UK Governments.
The UK Government was neutral on the issue, but the Cabinet Secretary could not guarantee to me, when I questioned him, that all the safeguarding provisions would be replicated in a section 104 agreement. For many MSPs, this was the equivalent of asking them to vote in the dark. That this issue came so late in the day was problematic.
Key protections within the Bill were removed to make it legislatively compliant, but there was considerable disquiet as the Bill was weakened. Consequently the Royal College of Psychiatrists and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society in Scotland changed their view to oppose it.
I weighed up the views of my constituents, medical professionals and families who have lost loved ones in difficult circumstances and decided to vote against the Bill because of its insufficient safeguards.
One thing is certain, we need better end-of-life care and the Assisted Dying Bill has brought this into sharp focus.
Jackie Baillie MSP is Scottish Labour’s deputy leader
Comments
Want to join the conversation? Please or to comment on this article.