Seòmar agus comataidhean

I am very grateful to you for taking my intervention. Surely you would accept that, in order to make the choice not to accept palliative care, an individual has to be given the option of palliative care in the first place. You and every other member here are aware of the inequality of access to palliative care. We have talked about how quality of life can be greatly enhanced by palliative care. Not having access to palliative care much reduces quality of life. The decision to access assisted dying has to be a decision of equality. Not having access to palliative care creates a real problem with the bill.

The whole point of my amendments is to try to counter a family member potentially facing a moral issue when someone has made a decision to access assisted dying. Even though it is the medical professional’s job to establish whether there has been any coercion, if someone makes an accusation of coercion, it is the police’s legal responsibility to investigate that. That is the problem that I am trying to alleviate.

It does not matter whether the medical professionals decide that no coercion has taken place; if somebody says that it has, there is a legal responsibility to investigate that. That is the bit that would take the time and potentially impact the person who is seeking assisted dying.

I have been listening intently to other members speaking to previous amendments. One concern—this relates to one of my amendments, which I am about to come to—is about the definition of quality of life. I think that quality of life is a moveable feast, and having one interpretation of quality of life at a particular moment in time does not necessarily mean that that quality of life will remain poor. I have a relative who would, at one point, have suggested that their quality of life was extremely poor and would have wanted to end their own life. However, 15 years later, that person is a grandparent and has a great quality of life. I am concerned that we would consider an individual’s quality of life, or their perception of that, at a certain moment in time as being relevant to whether they can access assisted dying.

My amendment 145, which is related to that issue, is on inequality of access to palliative care and the ability of palliative care to improve somebody’s quality of life towards the end of life. We know that access to palliative care in this country is incredibly unequal, especially in more deprived areas. My concern is that, if we do not put in place some sort of safeguard around a right to what we define as a basic level of palliative care, assisted dying may become a preferred option for patients because of the lack of suitable and deliverable palliative care.

I agree that individuals should have the right to say no to palliative care, but in order for them to be able to say no, palliative care has to be on offer in the first place. That is what I am trying to set out here. If somebody decides that they want to go down the route of assisted dying, they should be able to say no to palliative care, but they can say no only if it is available.

Amendment 145 would allow the Scottish Government to produce a definition of minimum standards of palliative care for those who want to access assisted dying. I do not see how we can do without that, because the bill’s impact would become incredibly unequal if there are those who can and those who cannot access palliative care. We need to ensure that there is a fully costed palliative care support plan to ensure that that is deliverable.

I have engaged extensively with those in the third sector on amendment 145, and I understand that they are, in some cases, hesitant that such a requirement may become a barrier to accessing palliative care. However, I would say that access to an acceptable level of deliverable palliative care is not just important but crucial in relation to the bill.

Amendment 207 is consequential to amendment 145.

I welcome Pam Duncan-Glancy’s amendment 220, which she spoke to very powerfully. I also commend the work that Tanni Grey-Thompson has done—having sought her advice, I know that she is a powerful advocate on this issue.

I would welcome engagement across parties and, more importantly, from the Scottish Government at stage 3. I recognise that the Government is neutral but that does not mean that it cannot advise on operational challenges that the amendments could cause. Arguably, by failing to engage, the Government would in effect be acting against the bill. If the bill is going to be the best that it can be, it must be deliverable, and the Government needs to advise on whether it would not be deliverable.

I declare my position: I have not decided what my position will be at stage 3. In considering all the amendments, I am seeking to make the bill the best piece of legislation that it can possibly be.

I have lodged my amendments in this group because of my concern that an individual who may have a moral or personal reason to oppose the decision of the person who has made an assisted dying declaration could use the police or court system to delay the process through a protracted investigation resulting from an allegation of coercion. Amendments 161, 164, 169, 172 and 174 create a mechanism for review that is independent of the medical profession, for use in cases where people who are close to the patient—that would be family, named friends or carers—suspect or allege coercion.

I have tried to model my approach on a similar independent assessment model for organ donation, which has a 10-day reporting time. Amendment 162 says that reports should be referred to the medical professional or police where appropriate; amendment 210 gives the Scottish ministers flexible powers to create the model. The mechanism is triggered only when those close to the patient express that concern. The 10-day reporting time is also included in an effort to not prolong the suffering of the person who wishes to access assisted dying.

The driving force behind the amendments was the realisation that, as the bill stands, if somebody tries to access assisted dying and there is an objection from a relative or close friend, they could be wrapped up in a legal court case because the police would be duty bound to investigate any such allegations. We all recognise the length of time that that can take—by which time, the person who has tried to access assisted dying may be unable to comply with the rules and regulations or may have passed away. The amendments are about trying to protect the person who wishes to access assisted dying and make sure that they do not suffer excessively.

Will the member give way?

Rhoda Grant and I have made the point—quite strongly, I think—that we are not forcing people into palliative care or into social care. However, the important point—the key element—is that, in order to make an informed choice and to provide an even choice, palliative care must be available.

I know that you buy into this, but the population health framework is about how we make sure that there is an opportunity for neurodivergent people to integrate and participate, and the reality is that that opportunity has reduced. I am almost reverse engineering it based on what happened during Covid, because we have seen what happens when that support is withdrawn. What if we went in the opposite direction and produced a public health framework that says that people will be able to integrate and that there will be an opportunity for them to participate, not just in sports but in any kind of activity at all? What are you going to do to ensure that that reverse engineering is done? It is not enough to say that you understand it; it has to be done.

I have a specific interest in the issue. I have coached people with autism and fetal alcohol spectrum disorder—not ADHD but FASD. The minister has talked about a whole-system approach, which I whole-heartedly agree with. The structure from coaching, the outlet for energy and the ability to mix with others in such an environment is a positive thing, in general, especially in one’s youth.

However, Covid took all that away. It had a very poor impact on the mental health of the squad that I coached in general but, very specifically, the impact on those who were neurodivergent was miles worse, and the way in which their lives were impacted was considerably worrying.

When we talk about a whole-system approach and the prevention of harm, I am interested in the opportunity for kids in general, but specifically those with neurodivergence, to participate. I raised that issue with autism and ADHD third sector organisations and the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland; to be honest, I expected a major pushback, but they were very supportive of the approach and agreed that, as well as the fact that we are better at diagnosing, one of the reasons why we are seeing such a large increase in the number of presentations is that we have taken away a lot of that opportunity. That was a long-winded way of asking how you are working with other departments and other portfolios in the Government to deliver on that whole-system, whole-health approach.

I will press the issue. We are witnessing the increasingly devastating effect of isolation on neurodivergent people. It is unbelievably important for people to be part of something, and we have heard evidence that communities can be built online, so it is not all bad. As a Government, how are you making sure that all portfolios recognise the importance of tackling isolation?