Annabelle Ewing
Scottish National Party · Scotland
“Before we turn to the next item of business, I hope that members do not mind if I say a few words. I would like to say specifically what an honour it has been for me to serve in the Scottish Parliament, which, of course, was reconvened by my late mother, Winnie Ewing, in 1999.”
“There is one question to be put as a result of today’s business. The question is, that motion S6M-21180, in the name of John Swinney, on a motion of thanks, be agreed to.”
“I hope that members feel that I have discharged my duty. I thank you for having given me the opportunity to be your Deputy Presiding Officer, along with Mr McArthur, and I wish each of you all the very best.”
“Members! Màiri McAllan: Equally, the prospect of scrapping the land and buildings transaction tax or stamp duty land tax is for the birds, and I am afraid that it demonstrates that the Conservatives realise that their chances of implementing any such policies are, to put it politely, very slim.”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament recognises the importance of sport and activity as a force for good that goes beyond just physical health; considers that they have a significant impact on mental health, as well as contributing to community and national cohesion and wellbeing; believes that sport breaks down barriers of colour, race, r…”
“Motion debated, That the Parliament notes with concern the reported decision by the Lloyds Banking Group to close 11 Bank of Scotland branches between June and July 2026, including the Rutherglen branch; understands that this is the latest in a series of bank closures across the UK; believes that these closures will have a significant imp…”
The complete record
Every one of 792 lines we hold for Annabelle Ewing, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 16.
“If the bill passes, it will be incumbent on the Government to ensure that the finances are available to deliver the palliative care that is necessary. If we cannot deliver the palliative care that is necessary, we will be left sitting with a bill that has been passed but which is undeliverable. I press amendment 150. Amendment 150 agreed to. Section 6—Medical practitioners’ assessments Amendment 22 moved—[Brian Whittle]—and agreed to. Amendment 23 moved—[Bob Doris]—and agreed to. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call amendment 151, in the name of Paul O’Kane. I remind members that if amendment 151 is agreed to, I cannot call amendment 24, due to pre- emption. Amendment 151 moved—[Paul O’Kane]. The Deputy Presiding Officer: The question is, that amendment 151 be agreed to. Are we agreed? Members: No.”
“The amendment would ensure that those judgments were made independently, and I imagine that that would give a certain amount of comfort to the medical professionals themselves, in making such a huge decision. I have to say—and I do not say this lightly—that the Scottish Government has been particularly unhelpful as the bill goes through stage 3 in declining to give us any steer at all as to what could be legal or otherwise. I was interested in Stephen Kerr and Michael Marra’s discussion of the impact on the Government’s finances. On Michael Marra’s point, I note that there is nothing in the budget that improves investment in palliative care. We are working with a bill at stage 3 without a properly costed and agreed financial memorandum.”
“The stage 2 amendments were eminently sensible, in the direction in which they were going, and they have been amended to fit the bill. I will not go through them all, but I am very pleased that they have been lodged, and they have my support. Paul O Kane’s amendment, which would make it mandatory to seek the appropriate advice, is a crucial amendment, and I ask the chamber to support it. However, I really want to speak to my amendment 155. Once again, I make the point that, once a request for assisted dying has been made, it is imperative that the professional judgments that come from the two healthcare professionals are made independently. That must be done independently.”
“I was interested in Rona Mackay’s intervention about what has happened in other jurisdictions, on which we also heard evidence in the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. There are jurisdictions in which, when assisted dying has been implemented, there has been an improvement in palliative care. However, improvement is not enough. Palliative care has to be consistent and at a certain level before we can consider assisted dying. That is why I was pleased that my colleague Douglas Ross lodged his amendment 154, which once again reminds us that it has to be a real choice for everybody, irrespective of background or personal circumstance. I listened to the contributions from Bob Doris, Jackie Baillie, Daniel Johnson, Miles Briggs and Fulton MacGregor, who have amended and lodged similar amendments to those that they lodged at stage 2.”
“That will be duly noted on the record. I call Brian Whittle to wind up and to press or withdraw amendment 150. 17:45 Brian Whittle: This is a large group of amendments, and the Deputy Presiding Officer will be pleased to hear that I will not speak to every single one of them. As one would imagine, given that we are discussing assessments of and support for terminally ill adults, most of the contributions from across the chamber have been considered and well made. We talked initially about the impact of the option of palliative and social care. However, I say that that should not be an option; rather, it must be offered. I am pleased that everybody is in agreement on that because, in reality, we cannot separate access to palliative and social care from assisted dying.”
“After section 5 The Deputy Presiding Officer: Amendment 149, in the name of Brian Whittle, is grouped with amendments 159 and 303.”
“The next item of business is stage 3 of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. In dealing with the amendments, members should have the bill as amended at stage 2—that is, Scottish Parliament bill 46A—the marshalled list and the groupings of amendments. The division bell will sound and proceedings will be suspended for around five minutes for the first division. The period of voting for the first division will be 30 seconds. Thereafter, I will allow a voting period of one minute for the first division after a debate. Members who wish to speak on any group of amendments should press their request-to-speak button or enter RTS in the chat function as soon as possible after the group is called. Members should now refer to the marshalled list of amendments.”
“The next item of business is a statement by Tom Arthur on Skye house: progress and assurance. I ask members who are leaving the chamber to do so quickly and quietly, because we are moving on to the next item of business. The minister will take questions at the end of his statement, so there should be no interventions or interruptions. 14:51”
“All the assumptions are that doctors and family members are somehow pressing their loved ones to end their lives—"encouraging” was the word that Mr Mason used. What if the pressure is in the other direction? Bob Doris: I should point out that indirect pressures, direct pressures, societal pressures and pressures from family members happen in all and any circumstances, but the proposal in front of us fundamentally changes the law, and it is right to build in these kinds of protections. I very much hope that Lorna Slater agrees with that and will support my amendments 27, 160 and 33, given the passionate comments that she has made about such protections.”
“Amendment 160 simply gives some examples of relevant indirect pressures, including “a person’s beliefs about themselves, society’s expectations, the significant absence of health or social care services to meet the person’s needs,” while amendment 33 seeks to require a registered medical professional to “have regard to any relevant professional guidance on decision making, including the impact of indirect pressures and other factors affecting free choice.” Together, amendments 27, 160 and 33— Lorna Slater: Would “indirect pressures” include the pressure not to seek an assisted death? What if a patient were asking for an assisted death, but their family members were pressuring them strongly not to do it?”
“In particular, the use of the word “undue” suggests influence that is somehow insidious or negative in nature, and not just the pressure that we all feel through our interactions with the rest of society on a daily basis. Bob Doris: I thank Ross Greer for that very helpful intervention, which gives absolute clarity to the policy intent here. I hope my other amendments in this group, which I am about to speak to, will reinforce some of that.”
“I very much hope that MSPs will agree that it is reasonable for the registered medical practitioner to inquire into and take account of such indirect pressures. If they do, I ask them to please support amendment 27. Ross Greer: I have a lot of sympathy for amendment 27 and what Bob Doris is laying out. My only slight concern is the meaning of the phrase “indirect pressures”. In a society, we all come under pressure from one other all the time and in all sorts of different ways. Does he agree that what he is proposing would work particularly well in combination with what Paul O’Kane has proposed in amendment 151, which uses the phrase “undue influence” before talking about such pressures?”
“I should also point out at this stage that I, like others, will not be supporting this bill at the end of the stage 3 process; however, I do think that I have a responsibility to strengthen the bill and make it as robust as possible, and my amendments have been cast in that light. I suspect that many of us know from experience, whether from personal experience of family and friends or through our constituency casework, the impact of financial distress, the challenges that inadequate care packages place on a person or their family—I think that Pam Duncan-Glancy referred to that earlier—and the profound impact that lack of access to appropriate symptom management or palliative care can have on a person’s lived experience and the perception of their quality of life.”
“For example, they might feel a burden; there might be financial pressures; or there might be a major failure of service, be it in housing, social care or palliative care or, indeed, in other ways. All of those things can exert indirect pressures. Palliative care practitioners in Scotland regularly support people expressing a wish to die due to indirect pressures, and those people often go on to enjoy valuable time when those pressures are explored, understood and addressed. Indeed, they will often say later that they are glad that they did not end their lives. Currently, the bill does not suggest, or require, that the assessing doctor identify or consider such indirect pressures; instead, it focuses exclusively on coercion as something done by another person. I think that that is a weakness.”
“Bob Doris: I have many amendments in this group, but I want to focus on amendments 27, 160 and 33, because I do not wish to see those amendments lost in amongst the various other amendments in my name, which I will come to later. Amendment 27 seeks to require an assessing doctor to inquire about and take account of indirect pressures and whether such pressures are unduly limiting someone’s ability to choose freely. Surely that is fundamental when it comes to striking a balance in assisted dying legislation, notwithstanding the challenges in doing so that Mr Marra outlined in his contribution. We know that all sorts of factors might affect a person’s ability to decide freely to seek an assisted death.”
“My other response goes back to the point about social work, which is that a multidisciplinary team will act in the interests of the individual to ensure that their rights are upheld and that, when they go to see their GP or whoever it is in whatever context, they have independent support if they require it. Mr Greer’s point goes back to the issue that I was highlighting in my peroration. If we cannot square the circle and work out how to verify that someone has not been coerced and that they have made independent decisions, it becomes difficult to understand how the bill can progress and be supported without those valuable safeguards I am conscious that I have taken up quite a bit of time—I am grateful, Presiding Officer. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Bob Doris to speak to amendment 24 and other amendments in the group.”
“I understand the intention behind the provision, but I am trying to understand how such a meeting could practically take place when there are some individuals for whom it is hard to envisage there being any circumstance in which they would not require another individual to be with them to advocate on their behalf or to communicate for or with them. Paul O’Kane: Mr Greer raises a fair point. My intention in lodging the amendment was that the provisions would follow the processes that are already in place to deal with those issues in the healthcare space. People can access interpretation, advocacy and support as is appropriate and as they are comfortable with in relation to the discussions that they will be having. In such contexts, the people who provide those services are usually independent.”
“However, it is important to put these points on the record as we begin the stage 3 debate on the amendments this evening. It is also important to ensure that, if we cannot answer the questions that have been posed to us by professionals in social work— Ross Greer: Will the member take an intervention? Paul O’Kane: I was just about to sum up, but I will take Mr Greer’s amendment. Ross Greer: I have a lot of sympathy with Paul O’Kane amendment 151 and the amendments that are consequential to it. I want to briefly ask him about paragraph (a) in amendment 172, which is the provision to conduct “at least one assessment meeting with the person alone and in private”. How would Paul O’Kane envisage that taking place in practice when people have particular communication needs—for example, British Sign Language users?”
“Having had those conversations with the social work representative bodies, I know that there remains a clear concern that those aspects have not been addressed in the bill. That could call into question long-standing professional procedures for social workers and also their professional integrity. The danger of saying to GPs that they can request such input and advice is that it could lead to a role for independent social workers. Many people in the social work profession want to avoid going down that road and instead want to keep the role within existing systems, as Ms Nicoll raised in her intervention. I appreciate that there will be further speeches on these issues and that there are amendments in the name of Fulton MacGregor that would deal with much of what we are discussing.”
“However, mandating that in each and every instance would seem to be disproportionate and completely out of step with the approaches that we take in similar pieces of legislation related to social work. Paul O’Kane: I recognise what Mr McArthur said about how the bill was amended at stage 2. However, that does not get away from the fact that the social work representative bodies are still making the point that they cannot support the bill at this stage because they are concerned that it does not do enough with regard to the automatic triggers for someone who is particularly vulnerable, who might already be subject to adult protection processes, and concerned about what it would mean to have a further layer of multidisciplinary investigation around them.”
“Adult protection investigations and child protection investigations are governed by a multidisciplinary approach that involves social work, health, the police, education and those who have a relevant interest in the person. In the discussions that I have had with the social work representative bodies, it was clear that the same process is not envisaged in the bill for people who are engaging in an assisted death, particularly those people who would be vulnerable at the end of life. Liam McArthur: Will Paul O’Kane recognise that the amendments that were agreed to at stage 2 will now ensure that co-ordinating medical professionals and independent medical professionals would be able to consult social work, social care and other relevant professionals to seek an input where appropriate?”
“Audrey Nicoll: I completely agree with the member’s observations regarding existing legislation, which includes the Adult Support and Protection (Scotland) Act 2007 and the Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. Has he had a chance to think about how those pieces of legislation interact and how the professionals who work under their provisions would work together? How would they be able to collaborate and work on a cross-sectoral basis with regard to what we are discussing? 19:30 Paul O’Kane: Ms Nicoll makes an important and good point. She recognises the multidisciplinary nature of how we approach such things in Scotland at the moment.”
“I acknowledge the amendments that Brian Whittle and others have lodged to try to sustain those social work processes and provide for them to be followed. We need to take clear cognisance of the fact that the bill might not be able to square the circle on coercion by creating robust enough safeguards to protect the most vulnerable in society. Social work professionals, who are often tasked with the most difficult decisions in our society about children and young people, older people and people who have a disability are experts in their field. They are trained, they know their communities and they know all the risks that exist in that space and how to identify them. If they are saying that they do not have confidence in the bill, we have to sit up and take notice of that.”
“It is clear that the social work profession is rejecting the bill not because of the issue at hand, on which it has a neutral position because social workers take different views on whether to support assisted dying, but fundamentally because, as it has pointed out, it is concerned that we appear to be forgetting about the important role that social work processes play in identifying coercion, coercive control, abuse and all the other issues that I have outlined. I have met both Social Work Scotland and the Scottish Association of Social Work, and they are clear that they are very concerned about the lack of regard that is given in the bill to existing adult support and protection processes and to the creation of new processes.”
“It is about whether we can provide adequate safeguards for the most vulnerable people in our community and society and whether we can at least equip the medical professionals who will carry out assessments and deal with the issues to be able to do that in the most direct way possible. That would be in private and in a one-to-one setting, and they must be adequately trained to do that. I put on the record that I have had interaction with the social work profession on many of the issues that are raised in amendments in the group, and I declare an interest as I am married to a registered social worker.”
“The people I worked with were often vulnerable and did not have a strong family network, and many of them had lived much of their lives in institutional settings before this Parliament sought to move people into the community and tried to give them a life with choice and control. Many of those people had become vulnerable through the institutionalising of the way in which they lived their lives. Many of them were vulnerable and would not be able to identify it to somebody if they were being coerced into doing something. For me, that sits at the heart of the bill.”
“My amendment 156 would require that practitioners receive training on “the identification of … coercion, undue influence and coercive control”, including in contexts of “dependency arising from illness, disability, age, social care needs or caring arrangements.” I have sought to construct reasonable amendments that can command support. However, I recognise what my colleague Michael Marra said about how difficult it will be to identify coercion and how pressurising it could be for GPs to have to take that forward. For much of my life before I became an MSP I worked with people who have a learning disability, and I recognise many of the things that Mr Marra said about women’s experiences of coercive control.”
“The bill does not specify how coercion should be identified, nor would it ensure that practitioners have training or are able to access relevant expertise on coercion, which I will come to when we debate amendments in the next group. My amendment 172 would require practitioners to take “all reasonable steps to identify whether the person has been subject to coercion, pressure or undue influence”, including through private assessment, consideration of social and caregiving circumstances and, where appropriate, consultation with safeguarding experts.”
“Paul O’Kane: I will reflect on much of what my colleague Michael Marra has outlined about the challenge in the bill around coercion and the need to try to deal with coercion at this late stage in the process. For many colleagues across the chamber, it is a significant hole in the bill that coercion and the potential for coercion have not been appropriately addressed throughout the process. My amendments in the group seek to strengthen the safeguards to ensure that declarations under the legislation will be genuinely voluntary. The amendments would require that practitioners are satisfied that a declaration has been made without coercion or undue influence.”
“Surely we cannot countenance sending a signal to abusers that coercing or pressuring someone into assisted dying is not an incredibly serious crime, for which people will face grave consequences. Liam McArthur’s amendment 51 seeks to increase the fine that can be levied for coercion. It is unclear how amendments 50 and 51 are meant to interact. Would the Parliament not be sending a clear signal to the legal profession that a fine was the more appropriate punishment for such a terrible crime? If so, that is entirely the wrong message to send. I will listen to the justification and the debate with interest. I move amendment 144. The Deputy Presiding Officer: I call Paul O’Kane to speak to amendment 151 and other amendments in the group.”
“I will listen carefully to Ruth Maguire’s justification of her amendment 93. I welcome the intent behind it, given the suggested process to determine that the decision is taken free from coercion. However, I remain sceptical that any medical professional could ever confidently make such an assessment. Members will get the gist of my views in those areas. I am deeply concerned by Liam McArthur’s amendment 50, which seeks to reduce the custodial sentence for coercing or pressuring someone into assisted dying from two years to 12 months. I cannot think of what possible justification there is for that, although I will listen to whatever justification is given and will reflect on it in closing.”
“I believe that Paul O’Kane’s amendments are also very well intentioned but, given the difficulties in detecting and proving, and training professionals to detect, coercion, I will not support them, with the exception of amendment 319, which seeks to strengthen safeguards by ensuring that the registered medical practitioner’s statement covers the full set of safeguards that are listed in section 7. Jeremy Balfour’s amendments would require a registered medical practitioner to record in writing that the person’s request to end their life comes solely as a result of a terminal illness and not as a result of disability, mental distress, financial pressure and so on. Although that is a noble attempt to increase transparency and accountability, I am concerned that it will not provide an effective safeguard for vulnerable individuals.”
“I believe that the evidence that I have seen renders those amendments functionally redundant, unfortunately, as internal coercion and indirect pressures are virtually impossible to identify, much less prove. I will support amendment 27, as it would insert a further protection by requiring the medical practitioner who carries out the initial assessment at least to raise the issue of indirect pressures with the person who has made a first declaration. Similarly, I recognise that Brian Whittle’s amendments are aimed at strengthening protections against coercion, but the chances of an independent assessor being able to accurately assess whether or not a person is being coerced are incredibly slim. I fear that those amendments risk making the bill look safer while making no real difference to protections from abuse or coercion.”
“On 2 March, Lee Milne of Dundee was found guilty of killing Kimberly Milne through systematic continued abuse. She jumped to her death. His hand did not push her, but he was her killer. Daily, I pass the purple ribbons left on the bridge in Dundee by those who mourn for her and share some of the pain that she felt. Last week, Dr Donaldson told MSPs about her sure conclusion that assisted dying could open a new route to manipulative, misogynistic and abusive men ending the lives of the women they abuse. Dr Donaldson sees no means by which that can be mitigated. Victims do not disclose abuse readily; it takes time, with trained and experienced professionals, to identify it. Even then, very often, it is not escaped. Bob Doris’s amendments appear to be aimed at highlighting internal coercion.”
“Dr Donaldson has caused me to reconsider my view of the possibility of improving the bill, including through my amendment 144. The self-declaration for which my amendment 144 provides would, in her view, be practically redundant as a safeguard, for the reason that John Mason set out. A person— normally, a woman—who experiences coercive control will very rarely perceive it as such, so they would make such a declaration. Even if they perceived it, they might not feel empowered or able to decline to make such a declaration. The dynamics to which I refer are overwhelmingly between abusive men and vulnerable women. We know about the scale of that abuse: in the past two years, instances of domestic abuse in Scotland have increased by 44 per cent.”
“John Mason: If somebody had been coerced, however subtly, into saying that they wanted to finish their own life, would they not also make a statement declaring that their declaration was voluntary? Michael Marra: That is a distinct possibility. I will come to my amendment 144 directly. In short, I am less convinced of it than I was when I lodged it. I feel that John Mason’s contention is consistent with ever more of the evidence that I have heard and seen. Defining coercion and internal pressure is difficult enough; proving it is another matter entirely. However, by no means does that suggest that it does not exist. Just last week, I hosted Dr Anni Donaldson in the Parliament. She is an expert in domestic abuse and coercive control, who has decades of experience in Scotland.”
“The feeling of being a burden financially, practically and emotionally on those whom they love or the community in which they live may bring people to the lonely conclusion that their best choice is to end their life. Clearly, those pressures fall more heavily on the poor, the disabled and the vulnerable. The amendments in this group seek to give protections against something that can be so insidious that it is extremely difficult to detect or prove. I fear that, were some of the amendments to be agreed to, parliamentarians and the wider public would have a false sense of security that the words in the legislation would fail to provide in any real sense.”
“I believe that that has become a growing concern among members, which has been backed by testimony and evidence from external sources during the passage of the bill, and I believe that that vulnerability is inherent in the opening up of state- facilitated death. That area of risk has led me, as someone who entered the Parliament in 2021 undecided on the issue, to oppose the bill. I have come to the conclusion that, in a society as unequal, discriminatory and sexist as ours, coercion is a risk that is beyond effective mitigation. A Scot can be persuaded that they are a burden by one individual in their own home, or by all 5.5 million of us across the country.”
“We turn to group 4, which is on coercion, pressure and undue influence of terminally ill adults. Amendment 144, in the name of Michael Marra, is grouped with amendments 151, 24, 152, 25, 27, 158, 160, 33, 172, 174, 175, 35, 177, 178, 36, 180 to 182, 187, 93, 189, 209, 41, 50, 51, 305, 76, 315, 77, 319, 320, 80, 321, 82 and 84. I draw members’ attention to the procedural information relating to those amendments that is set out in the groupings. Michael Marra: The amendments in group 4 are aimed principally at the prevention of circumstances in which vulnerable individuals are coerced into giving up their own lives.”
“It really requires both civil services and both Governments working together to address and resolve such issues.”
“Clearly, we have not heard yet whether there is a sense that the provisions fall out of scope, although we have all seen the Government’s commentary. It is very difficult for those of us who believe that these are important areas to legislate for to then be told that they might fall outwith the legislative scope. Michael Marra: The member makes a very good point. We find ourselves considering the bill three weeks from the end of the parliamentary session. If we had been looking at the matter two years past, there might have been more scope and time for the UK and Scottish Governments to have a more considered conversation about the matter and whether a section 30 order might have been a better alternative to a section 104 order. The issue also highlights the limitations of using a member’s bill in this Parliament to pursue this matter.”
“For those MSPs who are versed in the legislation, there are well- documented issues around legislative competence and the scope of the bill. I believe that professionals and the public will be astonished to hear that we are considering passing the bill without having in place cast-iron guarantees. Every physician I have spoken to would be of that opinion. A section 104 order from the UK Government would be required to enact the provisions on conscientious objection that we are discussing. That would be negotiated by officials, not representatives of the public, ministers or the workforce. Jamie Hepburn: Does the member agree that it would have been preferable and far better if the UK Government had agreed a section 30 order? I find myself having great sympathy for the arguments that have been deployed thus far in this area.”
“The Deputy Presiding Officer: Always speak through the chair. Michael Marra: It is reasonable to ask how the two amendments would interact, but I am not entirely sure how the two would operate together. However, it is absolutely clear to me that we must ensure that people have that choice and that we should protect it as best we can. I hope that that gives some clarification. As I said, I will wait to hear from the Government, but a number of well-intentioned amendments in the group will, I believe, be deemed out of scope, including amendments from Miles Briggs, Fergus Ewing, John Mason, Pauline McNeill and Jeremy Balfour, along with Liam McArthur’s amendment 133 and Jackie Baillie’s amendments 229 and 308. Liam McArthur’s amendment 107 seeks to entirely remove section 18, which makes provision for conscientious objection.”
“Liam McArthur, in his response last month to a letter from the medical bodies outlining their grave concerns about the bill, said: “Choice and protection are at the heart of this Bill and I want to be very clear that means choice and protection for medical professionals as well as for dying people.” However, if doctors cannot fully opt out of the process, that promise is hollow. Turning to other amendments in the group, I will wait to hear from the Government, but I believe that a number of well-intentioned amendments in the group will be deemed out of scope. Bob Doris: I apologise for intervening just as you were moving on to other amendments. If Mr Briggs’s amendment 142 were agreed to, under your amendment 148, would clinicians be able to make those seeking assisted death aware that an opt-in register was available for them to access?”
“According to a 2023 survey by the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland, the majority of palliative care doctors say that they would refuse to participate in any part of the assisted dying process if it was legalised and that seven in 10 would consider resigning if their organisation offered it. If such a significant proportion of palliative care doctors feel unable to remain in post under a system that would require even indirect participation, we must all take that extremely seriously. The implications affect not just the professionals but capacity levels in the NHS, which are already under extreme strain, as Parliament has recognised.”
“However, as Dr Mary Neal, an expert in medical law and ethics, told the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, when creating a system for the first time, the onus is on those who are designing the system “to design that conflict out of it”.—[Official Report, Health, Social Care and Sport Committee, 12 November 2025; c 14.] We must also listen to the clinicians who care most for people at the end of life—those who have dedicated their careers to relieving suffering and supporting patients at their most vulnerable, but who could, under the bill, find themselves being asked to facilitate a request for assisted dying.”
“It would make the doctor an integral link in the chain that leads to a person taking their own life. We should do everything that we can to protect the choice of individual clinicians in that regard. I know that others will argue that the duty to refer is necessary to ensure access to assisted dying and that a comparable duty already exists in the case of abortion.”
“I call Michael Marra to speak to amendment 148 and other amendments in the group. Michael Marra: The bill was amended by Liam McArthur at stage 2 to require doctors who are opposed to assisted dying to either refer a patient to another doctor who is willing to participate or to provide information on how to access assisted dying. My amendment would remove that requirement, so that no doctor would be forced to facilitate—either directly or indirectly—the ending of a person’s life. It is not difficult to imagine—in fact, I know it to be the case—that that would be highly objectionable. Indeed, it would be a resigning matter for medical professionals who have dedicated their working lives to preserving life. As was highlighted at stage 2, the requirement to refer is not a neutral act, and it may be viewed as a compelled complicity.”
“That is simply not what I consider to be acceptable as concerns eligibility. It is my view that, if the bill is to pass, it must be a narrow one that deals with exceptional circumstances when all other options are exhausted, and that it must deal with the end of life.”
“We need to tighten the scope of eligibility through the definition. Through amendment 2, I seek to narrow the eligibility for accessing assisted dying to people who are reasonably expected to live no more than six months. What I am attempting to capture in the amendment is not about accuracy of prognosis but about the principle that access should be extended to people who are at the very end of their life. That is important. One of my fundamental problems with the bill, especially after stage 2 consideration, was that, under the definition as drafted, simply having a terminal progressive condition would be sufficient for eligibility. That could mean that someone could have received such a diagnosis, have it deemed to be progressive and irreversible but still have many years left to live—perhaps even decades.”