Seòmar agus comataidhean

Again, I welcome the way in which Liam McArthur has engaged with members from across the chamber, but I disagree with him on one point. This bill is not like any other bill that we have ever had before us—it is very different from anything that we have been asked to consider previously.

My concern is that, if we do not manage to deliver some of the changes that we want and some of the safeguards that we have tried to put forward—be it that they must be reworded—it becomes increasingly difficult for people such as me, who have not made a decision one way or the other, to support that principle. I urge Mr McArthur and the committee to consider what has been said.

I press amendment 173.

Amendment 173 agreed to.

Amendment 174 moved—[Brian Whittle].

I will press amendment 173, and, in doing so, I have to say that I am feeling increasing disquiet at the way in which a lot of these amendments are being dealt with, both by Liam McArthur and by the committee. These are amendments that I have lodged on behalf of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and which Jackie Baillie has lodged at the request of the RCN, and I remind members that those are the actual people who will be at the delivery end of this bill, should it pass. I worry about the pushback against both of those groups, because, in my view, they are the experts and their views have to be taken into consideration.

Medicine is not an exact science and, as we have heard, there will be adverse reactions to medication, however rare those reactions might be. I have tried, through advance care directives, to put some protection in place with regard to a medical professional’s liability in the case that something goes wrong. Colleagues across the table here—Douglas Ross, Bob Doris, Sue Webber and Paul Sweeney—have all raised the same issues, and quite frankly, I do not think that the bill, as drafted, takes into consideration or addresses properly what happens on the rare occasions when something goes wrong.

My concern, which you might be able to address, is that your proposed approach skews matters. If, for example, there was a cancer diagnosis, it would not be recorded as such. That approach could skew a lot of health sector data.

I always have to mention it.

I have to say that I am incredibly uncomfortable with the direction of travel of this conversation. Having listened to the interventions and contributions from colleagues, I can see no circumstances in which a GP would be able to raise the subject of assisted dying in the first instance—

If it does not interfere with the legislative process, I do not see any reason at all why we would not write.

I recognise Mr McArthur’s on-going willingness to work with members and collaborate on the bill, but it seems that there is a presumption that none of the other members in the room have previously spoken to each other about their amendments.

In fact, many more amendments, including some duplicates, would have been lodged had we not spoken to each other. Members have, to date, lodged many amendments to address safeguarding issues and those amendments have been rejected, which concerns me. I have put it on the record that I voted for the principles of the bill at stage 1; I had not decided at that time which side of the argument I would fall on, come stage 3, but I said that there would have to be significant changes to the bill in respect of safeguarding if I was ever to support it at stage 3.

On the specific requests from the Royal Pharmaceutical Society and the RCN to me, Jackie Baillie and Daniel Johnson on lodging amendments, I note that the RCN is concerned because its members have to deliver on the bill, and to push back against that raises a concern for me.

Of course.

I have a point of clarification. Is it not already in law that a medical practitioner may refer a patient to authorities that might be able to help with a vulnerability?

With regard to amendment 153, the concern is the protection of patients and their wishes and the protection of healthcare professionals, as well as the provision of clarity on the patient’s decision for family members and friends. Amendments 153 and 209 make provision for the Scottish Government to bring forward a template advance care directive for patients who are accessing assisted dying. Amendment 163 would ensure that completion of the advance care directive was part of the assisted dying process by making it a requirement under schedule 2 to the bill. Amendment 156 would make the discussion of an advance care directive mandatory.

Overall, this set of amendments would help to avoid doubt with regard to patients’ intentions and would provide clarity for patients, healthcare professionals and loved ones. I have researched UK and international examples of what should be included, and this provision is standard elsewhere. Introducing this practice through the bill would give us a clear way to evaluate how these directives can work in practice.

The advance directive makes the patient’s wishes clear with regard to specific items of care that might prolong their life if they become incapacitated and cannot continue with the assisted dying process, if they become incapacitated due to the effects of the approved substance with which they may end their life, if they choose to cancel their declaration, or if they decide not to use the substance. The advance care directive cannot be used to choose assisted dying in the event of incapacity.

The template requirement is to allow a standard format for the advance care directive that fits the needs of healthcare professionals and makes information easy to locate when it is needed. The power is given to ministers to expand the care beyond what is listed, if required, in consultation with health professionals.