Misconceptions still persist about assisted dying

Rather uniquely, there were no cheers or celebrations from either side in the chamber because everyone involved understood how sombre the occasion was.

If anything, the debate itself showed the emotional toll this matter has had on many MSPs.

In the UK, 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.

READ MORE: UK to let US use bases for strikes on Iranian sites targeting Strait of Hormuz

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.

It is always worth remembering that legalising assisted dying does not mean aiding and enabling absolutely anyone to take their own life under any circumstance. Rather, it is a tightly defined attempt to allow terminally-ill, mentally competent adults to seek medical help to end their lives.

The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, introduced by the Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur, defined terminal illness as meaning “a person with an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death”.

More importantly, the bill made the criteria even more strict by adding: “It is not the intention that people suffering from a progressive disease/illness/condition which is not at an advanced stage but may be expected to cause their death (but which they may live with for many months/years) would be able to access assisted dying”.

Understandably, there are sensible concerns as to how this could be monitored in reality and what practical safeguards would be in place to protect people from abuse.

So, the bill made clear that it would have made it legal for a medical practitioner or authorised health professional to give an eligible patient a lethal drug to end their life after they had been through the relevant safeguarding checks.

These safeguards would have required an individual to make two declarations affirming their wishes, as well as passing checks from professionals to see if they had been coerced or influenced.

Critics of assisted dying argue that we should be focusing more on the quality of palliative care.

There are three reasons why I don’t think this argument holds water. Firstly, data shows that the majority of people (at least three-quarters) seeking assisted dying are already in receipt of palliative care.

People are not seeking assisted dying due to a lack of access to palliative care but rather because they view it as an addition to their end-of-life care options. Research conducted by the Office of Health Economics found that 6394 people a year have no effective relief of their pain in the final three months of their life. This is because even the best palliative care has its limits. A small but significant minority of people will experience unrelieved pain and other symptoms at the end of their lives. More palliative care would not stop this from happening.

Secondly, opponents often claim that most doctors already technically assist terminally ill people in dying by giving them such a high dosage of pain relief medicine that the end result is painless but fatal.

Yet, as things stand, there is very little formal guidance, regulation or oversight as to when a doctor should make such a decision.

In this sense, I find it is comparable with the reasons for having legalised abortion. Passing legislation to formalise safeguards and provide legal clarity for both doctors and patients is a good thing.

If we know something already happens, regardless of whether it is legal or not, then why not make sure it is happening safely and consistently by legislating for it?

In the absence of a safeguarded choice, many dying people take matters into their own hands. Some attempt to end their own lives only to worsen their condition.

We force those who can afford it to travel abroad to die with the dignity they desire while among those who cannot afford are some who try to end their lives by dangerous and often gruesome means.

Worse still, for those who cannot afford £15,000 to travel to Switzerland, they are usually forced to take their life all alone for fear that their loved ones might be prosecuted.

Thirdly, legalising assisted dying and providing first-class palliative care are not mutually exclusive.

To continue the abortion analogy, it would be like saying we will ban abortion to solely focus on funding adoption agencies.

Different people require different things in different circumstances, and good governance is providing people with legitimate choices.

There is no need for it to be an either/or decision when it comes to palliative care.

Our current laws deny people a meaningful choice over how they die, which is inhumane. If we would not let an animal suffer in this way, why are we content to let even a single person suffer in the same way?

If the suggested safeguards in this bill were not enough, then I’d like to know what would be enough, because this issue is not going away.