Seòmar agus comataidhean

We have heard from different countries that have taken part in our evidence that there are different approaches to doctors’ responsibility to discuss assisted dying with their patients.

A number of people who have responded to the consultation, particularly those who are interested in the law, have asked whether there would be a duty for doctors to raise assisted dying with patients as a treatment option if the bill was passed. I am interested in your views on that in the bill as drafted, and the implications for doctors and staff.

Your answers to my other question might be similar to those that you have just given. Have any of your organisations discussed with your membership the age limit of 16 years old that is in the bill?

Some legal experts have talked about safeguarding but, in some other areas, under 16-year-olds are deemed competent to make decisions about healthcare. Have any of your organisations discussed that?

I thank the witnesses for joining us and will begin by talking about the bill’s definition of “terminally ill”. I am sure that people will have read that the bill’s current definition refers to having

“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.”

While taking evidence, we have heard mixed opinions of that definition. Based on your knowledge and experience, what do you think of the definition? Is there another definition that you would like to refer us to or do you have views on what should be added to, or taken from, that definition? I am happy to hear from the witnesses in any order.

Is there another definition of “terminally ill” that the BMA would use in other areas of medicine?

Thank you—that answers my questions.

Does anyone else have a view?

I have learned a lot from the discussions, but there is something else that I have been wondering about. In lots of our evidence, particularly the written evidence, there has been discussion about support for patients and staff in this process. Can you say a few words about whether it would be helpful for psychological support, perhaps, to be available to staff and patients involved in the process? Do you think that, before going through the process, patients should have some specific support?

Do you have a view on patients receiving counselling? In your last response, you talked about others assessing what people need in response to the position in which they find themselves.

That is very helpful. Thank you.

I am so pleased that Government time has been given to debating women’s health today. We will support the Government’s motion tonight.

If we have learned anything from the women’s health plan, it is that every target in the next women’s health plan must have attached to it a clear action plan and a pathway to deliver it. Otherwise, it will just be more words to women in our communities. When our population desperately needs action, it is incumbent on us to ensure that we have a delivery plan. I am very pleased that the Government will support our amendment at decision time.

Since the introduction of the women’s health plan, it has always been my intention—and, indeed, the intention of the Scottish Labour Party—to scrutinise it fairly, with the genuine hope that it would be a success and that access to and quality of women’s health services would improve across the country.

As the minister indicated, securing a women’s health champion was a significant step forward, supported by Scottish Labour, in achieving some form of progress for women. I welcome Professor Glasier’s account of what the plan has achieved so far and what she hopes it will achieve in the future. Nonetheless, she and others continue to identify where there are problems and where we must strive to do better.

What we all agree is that women’s health must continue to be a priority if we are to have any hope of getting on top of the backlog of pain and misdiagnosis that so many women continue to suffer.

We will all have had meetings or phone calls with women who are unable to access diagnosis and treatment. As other members have said, we must mention those with endometriosis, in particular. I am sure that other members will cover it in their speeches today, but I note that women have suffered over many years, as there has been an absolute void in service for that condition. I welcome the changes, but there is much more to be addressed in the coming years.

We are all pleased with the achievements in women’s healthcare during this session of Parliament in areas such as the introduction of buffer zones to ensure that women can access healthcare free of intimidation and with the roll-out of the human papillomavirus vaccine as part of our fight to eradicate cervical cancer. I have been desperately pleased to see the progress in those areas.

I also want to mention, as the minister brought it up, the online women’s health platform, through which factual information is now available to young girls and women in Scotland. As we go through our life cycle, we can go back to that at the points when we need it. Professor Glasier spoke to us about that at one of the cross-party meetings that the minister pulled together.

However, it is undoubtedly the case that, in other areas, progress has been far too slow and that health inequalities have deepened and are very real for many people in our most deprived communities. All members have a responsibility to acknowledge that and to scrutinise the Government to ensure that the dial can finally be moved on the issue. We cannot have a debate such as this without understanding that life expectancy in our most deprived communities is falling and is far lower than it is in our most affluent areas. Of course, we are all more aware of the issues around unhealthy life expectancy.