PROPOSALS to legalise assisted suicide in Scotland have been rejected for the second time by Holyrood, meaning the bill will no longer be considered.
The vote followed a highly-emotional debate at the Scottish Parliament, in which many MSPs shared personal stories of loss and told of ordeals faced by seriously ill or dying relatives.
In the end they voted by 36 to 82 against the general principals of the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill.
It had proposed that those with terminal or life-shortening illnesses should be able to obtain help to end their suffering.
Supporters said the plan had widespread public backing but critics argued a change in the law would be unethical.
The Scottish Government did not support changing the law and MSPs were allowed a free vote.
The Bill was originally brought forward by the late independent MSP Margo MacDonald, who died last year after a long battle with Parkinson’s disease.
It was taken up by Green MSP Patrick Harvie, who said he gave a commitment to MacDonald to present this Bill as best he could to the Scottish Parliament.
But a Holyrood committee last month concluded the Bill contained “significant flaws” and opposed its general principles, but said the full parliament should decide whether or not to throw out the proposed legislation.
After the vote, Harvie said he hoped the government would “recognise the strong demand for clarity in law”.
He added: “It’s clearly a disappointment that the Bill will make no further progress.
“The significant support in the chamber reflects the clear public desire for people to have choice and for the law to be clarified.
“I know many supporters of assisted suicide will now be hoping that the Lord Advocate issues prosecution guidance and that the Scottish Government considers alternative approaches to the problem.”
MSPs heard very personal stories from members on both sides of the debate.
SNP MSP Dennis Robertson spoke emotionally about the loss of his 18-year-old daughter Caroline, who died in 2011 after struggling with a severe eating disorder, in setting out his opposition to the Bill.
He said: “If there was anyone who could have influenced me to support this Bill it was Margo MacDonald but she failed to do so.
“We’ve talked about coercion, coercion did happen in respect of my daughter and it was from me.
“She wanted to die, she said on several occasions ‘Let me die, I can’t live with this illness, you need to help me die, please help me die’.
“I didn’t. I held her, I held her in my arms, I gave her what we call in the north east a bosie and I said ‘No’.
“I couldn’t do that. I loved her too much. I wanted her to live, but I didn’t want her to live in agony, I didn’t want her to live with suffering. I wanted her to get well, I wanted her to see a way through her illness.”
Robertson also recalled sitting by his mother’s bedside before her death.
He said: “On the weeks coming up to her death, she’d asked to be freed, she’d asked ‘Let me go’. And it wasn’t because she was in pain.
“Her reasons for wanting to go and wanting to be free were she started to see the pain of the family, the grief of the family, the despair of her family. And that’s what her concerns were.”
His party colleague, George Adam, spoke about his wife Stacey, who has the secondary progressive form of multiple sclerosis, as he urged the chamber to allow the Bill to progress.
He said: “Primary progressive MS affects about ten to 15 per cent of people diagnosed with MS and we may find, like others, ourselves in that position one day.
“I can be as positive about our life together and our future together as much as I like, but it’s not me who’s living with the condition and potentially has to deal with any dramatic changes in her illness,” he said.
“Those of you who know her, know Stacey loves life, one of her most endearing and attractive qualities is her sheer lust for life, but what happens if she’s so ill that she no longer has that quality that she currently has?”
He added: “If we do not do this, are we not saying that some members of our community are to live their last days on earth in constant extreme pain? Is that just and is that right?
“I don’t even know if I could actually go through with Stacey’s wishes.
“I don’t know what my emotional state would be at that time, but is that not the point? Is it not about the choice, the ability to have this option?”
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