Assisted suicide law would devalue human life, Scottish politicians told

Legalising assisted suicide in Scotland would undermine the value of human life and expose the vulnerable to profound risks, a committee has heard.

CARE for Scotland outlined its opposition to Scottish legislation in its response to a call for views by Holyrood’s Health Committee.

The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, brought forward by Lib Dem MSP Liam McArthur, will be scrutinised in the coming months.

Mr McArthur’s Bill would make it possible for people aged 16 and above in Scotland who have a terminal illness to access lethal drugs from doctors.

It comes as similar proposals are being considered by politicians at Westminster, in Jersey, and in the Isle of Man.

CARE for Scotland’s response states that a change in the law is morally impermissible:

“Our guiding principle is that we affirm the inherent value of every human life – regardless of age; physical, mental, or emotional health; or disability. A principle recognised during the pandemic when the elderly and infirm were prioritised for vaccination and protection. This principle is undermined by legislation that permits the terminally ill to end their lives. Physician assisted suicide and euthanasia are not private acts. They involve a person bringing about the death of another. The societal implications of such a law change have serious implications.

“CARE believes that medical professionals should not be involved in assisting someone to end their life; nor should anyone else. Assisted dying should not be considered ‘treatment’. The current law does not restrict open or honest conversations, it restricts doctors from suggesting to a patient that they may be better off dead, or a patient inferring the same. Those struggling with depression, rely on doctors to dissuade them from suicidal thoughts.

“Endorsing a medical route to ending a person’s life undermines fundamental ethics; endorses the belief that certain lives are no longer worth living; and radically alters the nature of the doctor-patient relationship by undermining the Hippocratic Oath to first ‘do no harm’. CARE for Scotland’s opposition to the Bill includes the concern that no safeguard nor extra step will prevent undue pressure for someone to ‘choose’ assisted dying.”

CARE for Scotland’s submission continues:

“It is essential with an ageing population that all who need it can access timely physical and mental health care, including palliative care, social care and support. However, palliative care and so-called 'assisted dying' are not complementary in nature. Palliative care is holistically enhancing the quality of life of a patient. Assisted dying involves extinguishing a life and should not be considered treatment.

“To deny the risk to the vulnerable is to dismiss the assessment by UN human rights experts that even when access to medical assistance in dying is restricted to those at the end of life or with a terminal illness, people with disabilities, older persons, and especially older persons with disabilities, may feel subtly pressured to end their lives prematurely due to attitudinal barriers as well as the lack of appropriate services and support.

“As this is a matter of life and death, the burden of proof that someone choosing to end their life would be doing so voluntarily must be high – i.e. it must be possible to guarantee that no-one would die under the terms of the Bill who would not wish to if other options were available. Without such a guarantee, legislators are being asked to accept that some unintended but nevertheless foreseeable deaths of vulnerable people is acceptable for the sake of the broader principle. Legislators should err on the side of caution.

“Furthermore, evidence is clear that in the US states where access to assisted dying only is restricted to terminal illness, Bills are being debated or passed to ensure that “barriers” – previously termed ‘safeguards’ – are removed, including changing residency requirements, telemedicine, elimination of waiting periods, allowing nurses to prescribe lethal drugs, and changes in conscience provisions.

“CARE disagrees that the law should be changed. We are concerned that this Bill suggests that death by lethal medication is a painless and easy alternative to living with a terminal illness. Evidence suggests that this is not the case with some individuals experiencing long deaths and awakening from the cocktail of drugs, which places patients, families and their doctors in extremely difficult situations.”

Warning of a detrimental impact on healthcare, it continues:

“We believe that any introduction of 'assisted dying' would be detrimental to the relationship between doctors and patients as it would move away from the traditional role of doctors and other health professionals. We believe that 'assisted dying' should not be considered treatment and doctors should not have to discuss it with patients as an alternative to palliative care etc.

“This Bill would be detrimental to health professionals who do not agree with 'assisted dying' for any reason since there is no robust right to decline to participate for any reason in the activities under the Bill nor to decline activities beyond ‘direct participation’. This means it could impact any health professional who is required to raise 'assisted dying' with patients, refer patients to another health professional, prescribe lethal medication or undertake any assessment. It would impact any organisation such as a hospital, hospice or care home which wishes to decline to participate in any way in 'assisted dying'.”

The submission concludes:

“The author of the Bill argues that this Bill is transparent and offers safeguards. CARE believes that with the current pressures on health and social care, and the financial implications of terminal illnesses, any person could find themselves in a position of feeling a burden and subject to internal or external coercion.

“This Bill provides some very general provisions on assessment and assistance which are key to the alleged safeguards. These key provisions are to be expanded upon by guidance which could change over time but are not subject to agreement by the Scottish Parliament.

“This Bill is literally a matter of life and death and as such is inadequate as drafted given the lack of a strong overseeing role for the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Parliament would therefore not be agreeing to transparent rigorous safeguards ahead of the Bill becoming law.”

ENDS

A high quality image of Michael Veitch is available here.

CARE for Scotland is a social policy charity, bringing Christian insight to the policies and laws that affect our lives.

Contact us: press@care.org.uk