A Bill proposing to introduce assisted suicide in Scotland has been defeated at Holyrood by 82 votes to 36.
The Bill, which was taken over by Patrick Harvey MSP following the death of Margo McDonald, had its first stage reading in the Scottish Parliament on Wednesday (27th May).
The legislation purported to allow those over the age of 16 with terminal or life-shortening illnesses to end their lives with the assistance of another person, known as a “licensed facilitator.”
Predicted
Its defeat was predicted by the Care Not Killing Alliance earlier this week when it announced that 59 MSPs opposed the bill with a further 17 MSPs leaning towards opposing it.
Care Not Killing, which fought a strong campaign against the Bill, had presented a petition of 15,300 people who opposed a weakening of Scotland’s end of life laws.
After the vote, Dr Gordon Macdonald, convenor of Care Not Killing in Scotland, said: “In every free democratic society there are limits placed on human freedom in order to protect the common good and vulnerable people. It is right that the law is not to be changed to accommodate the wishes of a small number of desperate and determined people at the expense of the rights of others.
“Vulnerable people who are sick, elderly or disabled can so easily feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others. Parliament's first responsibility is to protect the vulnerable and that is what has happened.
“The work of CNK will continue in time to come as we emphasise the importance of palliative care - because the pro-euthanasia lobby is not going to give up.
“That is why we must remain ever vigilant and on alert to challenge and debunk their dark and deathly propaganda which offers a vision of the future which has no place in Scottish civilised society.”
Concern
Contributors to the debate highlighted the significance of the proposals for disabled people and raised concerns over the safeguards suggested by the Bill's proponents.
A day before, the Law Society of Scotland described the Bill as ambiguous, stating that it lacked clarity and fails to properly define key terms, leaving the legislation “open to interpretation.”
Commenting on the proposals, Alison Britton, convener of the Law Society’s Health and Medical Law Committee, said: “We remain concerned over the lack of definition of the key terms, such as ‘assistance’ and ‘life-shortening’ and the functions of the licensed facilitator are still uncertain. Lack of such clarity leads to ambiguity and leaves the legislation open to interpretation.”
The Law Society also criticised a provision in the Bill which sought to prevent prosecutions in cases where a ‘licensed facilitator’ acts contrary to the law when assisting in the suicide of another, but allegedly acted in “good faith.”
Ms Britton said: “This provision is so widely worded it would make practicable enforceability very difficult. The court would have wide discretion in interpreting what the intended pursuance of the legislation was, and as such an ignorance of the law could be a defence.”
The bill also had a provision which permits a proxy to sign the request for assisted suicide where the person making the request is blind, unable to read or unable to sign themselves.
Coral Riddell, head of professional practice at the Law Society said: “We have consistently said it is not appropriate for solicitors to act as proxies in this situation.
“Solicitors are not qualified to assess a person’s mental capacity in a matter relating to the ending of their life.”
Health and Sport Committee
Last month, a report by the Holyrood Health and Sport Committee concluded that the Bill contained “significant flaws" which “present major challenges as to whether the bill can be progressed.”
It noted the comments of the British Medical Association which said “there is no way to guarantee the absence of coercion in the context of assisted suicide.”
The report was published after submissions were made by more than 800 individuals and organisations and including academics, health care professionals, ethicists and religious groups.
Strong opposition
The Bill was also opposed strongly by disability groups representing young children and dementia patients, as well as doctors, the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, the Faculty of Advocates and the Equality and Human Rights Commission:
BMA Scotland
Dr Brian Keighley, Chairman of BMA Scotland, said:
“The BMA's current position is that it does not support a change in the law to permit assisted dying.The Association has clear and consistent policy, established at its representatives meeting in 2006 to oppose all forms of assisted suicide and euthanasia.
“The BMA oppose all forms of assisted dying; supports the current legal framework, which allows compassionate and ethical care for the dying; and supports the establishment of a comprehensive, high quality palliative care service available to all, to enable patients to die with dignity.”
Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow
The Council of The Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow said they have "carefully considered the Assisted Suicide Bill 2014 and have discussed it at the last two Council Meetings" and added: “It is clear that a substantial majority of Council is opposed to the Bill and remain fully supportive of our previously stated view in 2010 of opposition to assisted suicide.”
Lord Advocate
The Lord Advocate, Frank Mulholland, the country's top prosecutor said:
“In Scotland, if someone assists another to take their own life, such cases would be reported to the Procurator Fiscal as a deliberate killing of another and thus dealt with under the law relating to homicide.
“The criteria for deciding whether prosecution is in the public interest are set out in the COPFS Prosecution Code. I am sure that you will appreciate that there is a high public interest in prosecuting all aspects of homicide where there is sufficient, credible and reliable evidence.
“If the Crown considers there to be sufficient evidence that a person has caused the death of another it is difficult to conceive a situation where it would not be in the public interest to raise a prosecution but each case would be considered on its own facts and circumstances.
“Thereafter, it would be a matter for a jury to consider whether they were satisfied to the criminal standard of proof that the accused was guilty of homicide."
Equality and Human Rights Commission
Alastair Pringle, National Director, Scotland, The Equality and Human Rights Commission said:
“Our concern is that any steps to legalise assisted suicide (or assisted dying) reliably safeguard the right to life.
“The Bill is intended to create a narrow exception in the legislation which prohibits assisting another person to commit suicide. The question is whether such an exception can be drawn narrowly enough. The proposed safeguards in the Bill - requiring that the individual has capacity and is not depressed, that their illness is terminal, and that they have demonstrated a settled intention to end their life - would be difficult tests to operationalise.”
Church of Scotland
The Church of Scotland Church and Society Council said:
“In many ways, the proposed legislation is even more open to abuse than was the previous Bill, which was decisively rejected. We are clear that what is proposed in this Bill is not the best solution. Rather, there is a necessity to ensure that, as far as possible, all have access to good palliative care. The Church fundamentally disagrees with the proposed legislation, which represents much more than simply a tinkering with the law.”
Responding the outcome of the vote, Andrea Williams of Christian Concern said:
“Human life should be protected from moment of conception up until the point of natural death. This Bill undermined the sanctity of life and sent out the profoundly misleading message that the lives of the sick and elderly are not worth living.
“Legal and medical experts consistently warned that the proposed Bill was deeply flawed and would be difficult to enforce in practice. We thank God that the Scottish Parliament rejected this dangerous legislation and voted in favour of protecting the lives of thousands of vulnerable people.”