WHEN the UK Parliament reached the pivotal moment of the assisted dying bill passing its first reading last week, it really did awaken some much-needed conversations.

It marked a significant step in a long-debated issue, stirring hope for some but deep concern for others.

As this bill continues to move through the legislative process in London, a similar yet distinct conversation is unfolding here in Scotland. The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, introduced by Liam McArthur MSP, is now making its way through the Scottish Parliament, igniting debate across communities, families, and political divides.

This legislation seeks to offer terminally ill adults the choice to end their lives under carefully regulated circumstances. It is a profound and deeply personal issue, touching on questions of autonomy, compassion and the role of medical ethics.

READ MORE: MSP behind Scottish assisted dying legislation ‘confident’ for bill passing

As someone who has spent time listening to various viewpoints, and reflecting on my own experiences, I support the bill’s general principles. However, I do so with a full appreciation of the concerns raised by those who oppose it.

The Scottish bill proposes a framework enabling terminally ill adults to request and receive medical assistance to end their lives.

It lays out stringent safeguards, including assessments by two independent medical practitioners to ensure the request is voluntary, informed and free from coercion. A mandatory reflection period further ensures decisions are not made impulsively or under undue pressure.

Supporters argue that these measures provide a safe and compassionate option for those suffering intolerably. They highlight the importance of giving individuals autonomy over their end-of-life decisions, framing the choice as a basic human right. For many, it’s about aligning the law with a sense of moral decency, allowing people to avoid prolonged suffering and to die on their terms.

Yet, not everyone shares this view. Groups such as Care Not Killing and religious organisations have voiced strong opposition, raising questions about the bill’s implications. A key concern is the risk of coercion, particularly for vulnerable individuals who may feel pressured to choose assisted dying to avoid burdening their families or caregivers.

Critics also worry about the message this legislation might send to society about the value of life, particularly for those living with disabilities or chronic illnesses.

These arguments resonate with many. Opponents fear a slippery slope where societal attitudes toward life and death could shift in unintended and harmful ways. They argue that the focus should instead be on improving palliative care, ensuring that everyone has access to compassionate and high-quality support at the end of life.

My own perspective has been shaped by personal experiences. I have watched my grandparents and other family members endure slow and painful deaths.

These were strong, resilient people – heads of our family – and to see them in such agony and asking for release, was harrowing. It left an indelible mark on me and profoundly shaped my belief in the need for compassionate choices at the end of life.

As their suffering unfolded, I often thought about the words I’ve heard from many over the years: “We don’t let our animals suffer like this.”

READ MORE: If MPs aren't up to the job on assisted dying, there's an alternative

A poll conducted by Dignity in Dying found that 80% of people in my constituency of Banffshire and Buchan Coast support assisted dying. It’s a statistic that certainly made me realise how much we are moving forward with our views on this subject.

As the bill progresses through Parliament, I will ensure that my constituents can reach out and let me know their thoughts directly. All voices must be heard on such a sensitive and emotive matter.

For me, this is not about devaluing life – it’s about respecting individual autonomy. It’s about saying that when medical science has done all it can, and when someone’s suffering becomes unbearable, they should have the right to make a choice about their own body and their own death.

Conversations around death should be embraced as an essential part of living well. These conversations allow us to prepare, to make our wishes known and to ensure our final moments reflect our values and dignity. Saying all that, I am certainly aware of the concerns raised by those who oppose this bill.

Coercive control is a particularly troubling issue and I believe the legislation must include robust safeguards to address this risk. I will scrutinise this bill closely, ensuring that any measures enacted uphold the highest standards of safety and compassion.

The protections in place must not only reassure sceptics but also safeguard the vulnerable, ensuring that every choice is genuinely free and informed.

Critics have also raised the importance of investing in palliative care. On this point, I could not agree more. Good palliative care and the right to choose assisted dying are not mutually exclusive – they complement each other.

READ MORE: Should Holyrood and Westminster move towards assisted dying together?

By advancing both, we can create a society where no-one faces the end of life without support, dignity, and the freedom to decide what is best for them.

We need to equip ourselves and our loved ones with the tools to face the end of life. This includes not just the right to choose assisted dying but also broader discussions about how we support people through their final moments.

For those who oppose this bill, I offer my empathy. For those who support it, I share your hope that Scotland can lead the way in creating compassionate, thoughtful legislation.

And for those who are uncertain, I invite you to join the conversation, to listen and to reflect on what autonomy, dignity and care mean to you.

I support the general principles of this bill because I believe in choice, in dignity, and in the right to control what happens to our own bodies – especially at the very end.