Scottish doctors warn against Assisted Suicide Bill

Scotland’s top doctors have raised “significant collective concern” about the removal of safeguards from the assisted suicide bill which will be voted on in Holyrood in March. The Scottish Government have said that they will remove provisions for ‘conscientious objection’, referring the matter to Westminster instead.

Seven organisations have written to ministers and MSPs ahead of next month’s vote: the Association for Palliative Medicine (Scotland), Medical and Dental Defence Union of Scotland, Royal College of General Practitioners Scotland, Royal College of Physicians and Surgeons of Glasgow, Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland, Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. The various groups have stressed that they are neutral on the principle of assisted suicide, but have concerns about the proposed changes.

The Bill currently has provisions concerning “no duty to participate” and conscientious objection, allowing medical professionals to refuse to take part in someone’s assisted suicide. However, the Scottish Government believes that these provisions may come under reserved powers. The legislation needed to give doctors the ability to opt out would be dealt with through a Section 104 Order, which would receive much more limited scrutiny in parliament.

In their letter, the seven organisations state: “The prospect of removing matters of such professional, ethical, and legal significance from parliamentary scrutiny at Stage 3, and deferring them to secondary legislation after the Bill has passed, raises important questions about transparency, accountability, and the robustness of the legislative process.”

The groups identify four concerns about the plans: First, that removing safeguards, such as the ability to conscientiously object, would be “a substantial weakening of the transparency and rigour expected in the development of major legislation affecting healthcare delivery”.

Second, removing statutory protections would damage public trust and undermine the confidence of medical professionals when carrying out “ethically sensitive practices”.

Third, because Section 104 Orders have much less scrutiny than other forms of parliamentary legislation, this would means that “detailed debate, amendment, and accountability are significantly constrained”.

Finally, they argue that parliament should put forward the full set of procedures and safeguards before legislation is approved, especially when it has “profound ethical and clinical implications”.

MSP Ruth Maguire said: “This intervention from Scotland’s leading healthcare organisations warrants serious consideration by all MSPs. It is clear the legislation, while well-meaning and coming from a place of compassion, simply does not address matters of grave concern to those who will have responsibility for the safe, ethical, and fair delivery of care.”

The Stage 3 vote on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill is scheduled for 12th March, with two days of debates scheduled beforehand.