Seòmar agus comataidhean

I have lodged amendment 53 on behalf of Children’s Hospices Across Scotland. I always have sympathy with Miles Briggs but, on this occasion, I am not sure that he is suggesting the right approach. My amendment deals specifically with the necessary difference when we are dealing with children.

I genuinely believe that it would be unethical for medical practitioners to proactively raise the subject of assisted dying with young people under the age of 18 as part of anticipatory care planning. Anticipatory care planning is the process in which the future care needs of a young person with a life-shortening condition are discussed and planned for, and I think that the risk of coercion in that process is high. Healthcare professionals have a privileged relationship with young people and their families. They might have known a young person for a considerable period of time prior to that young person becoming potentially eligible for an assisted death. For that medical practitioner to proactively raise the possibility of assisted dying is not a neutral act: it might be perceived as a recommendation, even if it is presented neutrally. Raising assisted dying as an option for young people might also cast doubt on the efficacy of other treatments or measures, or on the ability of family members to provide support.

The reason that coercion is such a worry at that time in a young person’s life is that they may well be transitioning from children’s to adult services. That can be really hard, because many of the people who they know and rely on, such as health professionals, social care workers and voluntary sector organisations, are changing over. That makes the young person particularly vulnerable. My amendment does not prevent doctors answering questions if they are asked, but it prevents pre-planning for assisted dying before the age of 18. I urge support for amendment 53.

We are not talking about an everyday occurrence; this is something very unusual and highly sensitive. Furthermore, as you have acknowledged, significant numbers of people will not be impacted by your bill. Consequently, issues of access being limited for some terminally ill adults are not valid in this instance.

It is very difficult for a nurse who is placed alone to advocate for themselves and say that they do not want to carry out that role on their own, thereby causing unnecessary delay. What I am seeking should be built in from the start—it must be the expectation. If we want effective implementation of your bill, we need to assure those who are likely to be significant participants in it—that is, nurses—that we have their interests at heart.

I urge you to accept the amendments, because they do add to the bill.

Amendments 62 and 63 were lodged after discussion with CHAS—Children’s Hospices Across Scotland—which runs Robin house children’s hospice, in my constituency. The bill does not contain any details of the regulation, scrutiny or inspection of organisations that would provide an assisted dying service, nor of the reporting on the processes that they would operate. All of that happens in other types of care, so this would represent an unprecedented lack of regulation and scrutiny.

The requirement for regulatory arrangements needs to be made explicit in the bill, because we all want to ensure patient safety, and the quality of the service is a paramount consideration. Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the Care Inspectorate already ensure that non-NHS services are run by fit and proper people. They already have statutory powers to secure patient safety and significant experience of regulating the provision of social care and healthcare outwith the NHS. They are also accountable. To be clear, the amendments would not in any way prevent an assisted death in a person’s home; they would simply ensure that the organisation supporting that, if it was not an NHS service or a GP practice, met all the standards and was safe.

Amendments 73 and 84—amendment 84 is consequential—are to make it clear that a person is not considered terminally ill solely because they have a mental disorder.

Amendment 73 reflects the position of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland that mental disorders such as anorexia nervosa should not be classified as terminal conditions under the bill. It provides clarity and reassurance that the bill does not open the door to assisted dying for individuals whose suffering arises from mental illness alone. I believe that that safeguard is vital to prevent misinterpretation and to uphold the integrity of the bill’s intent, which is focused on those with a qualifying terminal physical illness.

I heard Liam McArthur’s earlier comments and, as amendment 24 captures the intent of my amendment, I will not move amendment 73.

No, I am not proposing a separate regulatory body; I am leaning into the current arrangements, and I am allowing for the circumstance that assisted dying might not be entirely delivered by the NHS, which is the case in other countries. It is a belt-and-braces approach that aims to make sure that we have the right regime in place, so that we are satisfied with the levels of scrutiny and regulation. I hope that that is clear.

Amendment 62 would allow the Scottish Government to bring forward regulations to prevent an assisted death from taking place in certain settings—for example, in care accommodation for people aged under 18, in a care service that is used primarily by children, in a drug and alcohol rehabilitation centre, in supported accommodation for people with mental health illnesses or in a women’s aid refuge. Those are all registered care settings, but providing assisted dying in them would clearly not be appropriate.

I also anticipate that the regulatory framework could make situations in which a person is asked to undertake an assisted death in a public place or outdoors a sensitive issue. The Scottish Government should bring forward the details in due course through secondary legislation. I also anticipate that secondary legislation will clarify whether the service can be provided privately on a for-profit basis. There are already legislative prohibitions on other types of care providers—for example, adoption agencies—operating for profit in Scotland.

In summary, the amendments are about ensuring that we have the right safeguards in place, that we allow only reputable and regulated organisations to be involved, and that a standard is set, that there is oversight of it and that we align that standard to existing bodies such as Healthcare Improvement Scotland and the Care Inspectorate, with which we are all familiar. I hope that members can support amendments 62 and 63, which provide for affirmative regulations.

I am capable of many things, convener, but that level of detail is not in my gift. I will be happy to provide the information later.

I am going to attempt the impossible, which is to try to get the committee to keep the petition open. As you rightly pointed out, the Wishaw neonatal unit was the best neonatal unit in the country—not Scotland, but the whole of the United Kingdom—in 2022. For some reason, the Scottish Government then decided that it should close.

You are quite right to reference an earlier report that was presented to the Scottish Government, which recommended that there should be three to five neonatal units to cover Scotland, instead of the seven or eight that we have now. Nobody disagrees with that. What we disagree with is that the Scottish Government opted to go for three units—one in Glasgow, one in Edinburgh and one in Aberdeen—and that Lanarkshire, the third-largest health board, which covers a population of 655,000 people, would have its neonatal unit removed. I have to say, in contradiction to what the minister contends, that the evidence was partial. There was no voice from NHS Lanarkshire sitting around the decision-making table, but there were representatives from Glasgow and Lothian.

The thing that we need to hold on to is that the Wishaw neonatal unit does not only deal with mums and babies from Lanarkshire; it deals with those covered by Greater Glasgow and Clyde, because the two Glasgow units that are currently there do not have enough capacity to cope with the mums and babies from Glasgow. Lanarkshire plays a key role for the whole of Scotland. It has been said that when the Wishaw neonatal unit closes and mums and babies cannot go to there, to Glasgow or, potentially, to Edinburgh, Aberdeen could be the default.

We think that there is not enough capacity in Glasgow to cope, so you would be putting the sickest babies in ambulances to make the two-and-a-half to three-hour journey to Aberdeen to be seen. It is entirely ridiculous, not just because of the risk, but because the sickest babies are likely to be in hospital for long periods. What happens to the mums and families who are rooted in their community in Lanarkshire? How do they spend time with the baby up in Aberdeen? That would be impossible and impractical.

It is not only the families who are very pragmatic in resisting these changes; it is the clinicians as well. The committee saw that very powerfully in its visit to the unit.

The solution, if I can posit one, is that we should have four units. It is common sense—it is not rocket science. I wonder whether we could invite the committee to write to the Government to suggest that it pauses any changes, that there should be a fully independent review and that it should consult the clinicians and the families affected in more than just a tokenistic way. Perhaps the committee could even invite the minister to come before the committee.

That would be a valuable conclusion to the committee’s visit. To be frank, if we do not keep the petition open, the Government will downgrade the neonatal unit between now and May, and that will not benefit anybody.

Absolutely. Not you, convener—the Government.

Well, what can I add to what you have already said, convener? You have been tireless in pursuing this petition, and you, the former health secretary Alex Neil and my colleague Neil Findlay campaigned alongside the mesh-injured women and championed their cause. Clearly, you continue to do that.

I concede that the Government has taken some action. There is a specialist clinic and access to mesh removal abroad, but waiting lists remain too long, and some women are still waiting. For me, the issue is the continuing use of mesh, whether it is in hernia operations or others.

I am persuaded by your efforts and by the response from the petitioners that we should keep the petition open, because the information is outdated. It is clear that your meeting with the First Minister was very welcome, but it throws up some gaps that I hope the committee will explore further.

I suggest that we keep the petition open, because the job is not yet quite done. On that basis, I commend the committee to do exactly that.

Patient experience tells me that that is not happening on the ground in a real way. When might we expect that to make a difference that people can see?