CONCERNS have been raised over a prominent anti-assisted dying commentator’s links to “the religious right” as a bill on the issue makes its way through the Scottish Parliament.
Members of the Scottish Parliament’s health committee have begun hearing evidence on Liam McArthur’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, with initial sessions focusing on how the practice has been applied in other countries.
The bill would allow terminally ill adults in Scotland who are eligible to lawfully request and be provided with assistance to end their own life.
Humanist Society Scotland has now expressed fears former palliative care doctor Gillian Wright – who is administrator for the Our Duty of Care campaign – is likely to be invited to give evidence against the bill in the coming weeks.
Although Our Duty of Care promotes itself as secular, it is part of the organisation Care Not Killing which has received substantial backing from evangelical Christian donor Brian Souter.
READ MORE: Surgeon breaks down describing 'IDF drones shooting children' in Gaza
In 2021, it emerged Souter’s charitable trust had pledged £90,000 to Our Duty of Care after previously bankrolling a number of other socially conservative causes.
Souter spent at least £1 million unsuccessfully fighting to keep Section 28 in place in the early 2000s which banned teachers from “promoting” gay rights in schools.
Wright was also pictured at a “Culture of Life” event in Dunkeld earlier this year organised by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (SPUC) – a conservative, anti-abortion group which has a “traffic light” system on its website urging people against supporting charities like ActionAid which support access to female contraception.
Also at the event was Bishop John Keenan of the Paisley Diocese, who earlier this year passed around leaflets to the health committee full of “concerning misinformation” on abortion during scrutiny of Gillian Mackay’s buffer zones bill.
While it has not been confirmed Wright will be called to give evidence, Humanist Society Scotland has said it would be “shocked” if she was not given she has appeared on national radio multiple times, when she was apparently introduced as a “medical ethics researcher” with no other details highlighted.
Asked why he was worried about Wright giving evidence, he said: “It’s about the honesty as to the perspective that you’re getting from her and her organisation.
“It’s totally fine that these organisation are there and that they are campaigning, and totally fine they give evidence at Parliament, but they can’t be under this pretence of ‘I’m just a palliative care doctor and have concerns’.
“That’s not why she is campaigning on this issue, she’s campaigning on this issue because she’s part of this bigger network of sanctity of life argument, religious-based organisations. That’s why she’s in that position, that’s why she’s funded to be in that position.”
READ MORE: Scottish Labour urged to say if they back 'appalling' hospital league plan
He added: “It’s about the committee making sure they are absolutely clear, if they are hearing from them [anti-assisted dying voices], on what is motivating them.”
There have also been concerns raised about Canadian physician Dr Ramona Coelho who gave evidence to the health committee earlier this week.
Coelho is a conscientious objector to Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) – Canada’s assisted dying system – meaning she does not engage in the practice.
Sutherland said on her giving evidence: “We question how helpful her contribution to the committee will be given she has no experience working in MAiD and cannot claim to be an authority on the process.
“MSPs have invited international experts to the committee precisely to learn more about how assisted dying works in practice in other jurisdictions. Given her strong ideological position and lack of active experience in the field, we doubt Dr Coelho's ability to provide the committee with the rational, evidence-based answers they need."
Previously, The National reported on concerns around Scottish Government consultations being manipulated to game the results.
The claim was made by Humanist Society Scotland after the Assisted Dying Bill consultation received nearly 21,000 replies, many of them from unverifiable sources.
The Health Committee issued two calls for views and received 13,821 responses to the first, with 74% in favour, with the majority of those from Scotland. There were then 7236 responses to the detailed call for views, with 93% expressing opposition to the bill.
A spokesperson for Care Not Killing said: “Care Not Killing is a secular organisation, which is supported by people of all faiths and none, who are united in opposing the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia and who promote better palliative care.
“It is disappointing that rather than engaging with our serious concerns around changing the law, some people are attempting to run a smear campaign against their opponents based solely on an individual’s beliefs and protected characteristics.”
A health committee spokesperson said: “Our committee has a wealth of experience of scrutinising legislation and as always will consider this bill in a balanced and thorough manner.
“We intend to hear from a wide range of witnesses, both individuals and organisations, and from those with differing views as part of our detailed scrutiny of this bill."
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel