WESTMINSTER MPs lucky enough to have their name picked in the draw are granted what is known as a Private Member’s Bill (PMB), offering a few of them a chance to draft a law to come before Parliament.
This year, one MP, Kim Leadbeater, has proposed giving terminally ill people in England and Wales the right to choose to end their lives. Given that a similar bill has been introduced and subsequently delayed in the Scottish Parliament, there is no doubt that what happens with this bill will impact what happens in Scotland. Before we get into the practicalities of how the law changes, it is worth reminding ourselves why it needs to change. We do not force animals coming to the end of their lives to endure unbearable terminal pain, yet there are human beings in the UK who are.
There are those who believe palliative care is sufficient end-of-life care but that denies the reality that there are those for whom it is insufficient. On average, every eight days someone from the UK travels to Switzerland for help to die. Ten times as many dying people are ending their lives at home by themselves in whatever way they can.
READ MORE: Alex Salmond's family issue update on public memorial service
Our current laws deny people a meaningful choice over how they die. We force those who can afford it to travel abroad to die, and those who cannot afford it are left to end their life by dangerous and often gruesome means.
To make matters worse, our current laws seek to prosecute anyone who assists a loved one willingly seeking to end their life.
In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, assisting a suicide is a crime. Those convicted could face up to 14 years in prison. In Scotland, there is no specific crime of assisting a suicide but it is possible that helping a person to die could lead to prosecution for murder, culpable homicide or reckless endangerment.
The first key distinction to make is that assisted dying does not mean assisting anyone in any circumstance to take their own life. Assisted dying refers only to terminally ill, mentally competent adults. The existence of legislation would offer legal clarity and protection. It would not only bring reassurance and peace of mind for many people with terminal illnesses, it also brings reassurance and legal protection for their loved ones as well. Leadbeater’s bill proposes clear and realistic criteria for eligibility.
It states that anyone wishing to end their life must – be over 18 years old and have been registered with a GP for at least six months; have the mental capacity to make the choice and be deemed to have expressed a clear and informed wish; be expected to die within six months; make two separate declarations witnessed and signed expressing their wish to die; and must satisfy two independent doctors that they are eligible.
A high Court judge must hear from at least one of the doctors and can question the dying person, or anyone else considered relevant. After the judge has made their ruling, a patient would have to wait another 14 days before acting.
A doctor would prepare the substance being used to end the patient’s life but the person would take it themselves.
This is different from euthanasia whereby a doctor prepares and provides the substance.
As I mentioned previously, similar legislation has been proposed in Scotland. In March, Liam McArthur MSP introduced the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill to Holyrood.
Similar to Leadbeater’s, the bill seeks to allow terminally ill adults in Scotland, who are eligible, to lawfully request, and be provided with, assistance by health professionals to end their own lives. It is currently at Stage One in Holyrood but in October, the Scottish Health Secretary said it was the Scottish Government’s view that the bill is outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The Scottish Government’s argument is that issues relating to lethal drugs are reserved to Westminster. That may well be the case, but dialogue between the UK and Scottish governments is not impossible.
The Presiding Officer – who decides which legislation is within the competence of the Scottish Parliament – has stated her confidence that the bill is within the powers of Holyrood.
Rather than avoiding controversy in an already tumultuous parliamentary term, the right thing to do would be to proceed with the bill regardless.
Leave it to Keir Starmer’s government to interfere if it so chooses. Take the challenge to Westminster instead of pre-emptively limiting ourselves on their behalf.
Ultimately, a change in the law would provide agency, it would provide accountability, and most of all it would provide a bit of much-needed humanity and dignity to those who feel they need it.
If such a bill progresses in Westminster then it will hopefully force the Scottish Parliament to follow. MPs will vote on the bill in Westminster for the first time on November 29. I hope they vote with the compassion the people affected by the proposed changes are asking for.
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 here