Seòmar agus comataidhean

If sport is important, we need to stop cutting the sports budget. In fact, we need to double it, as was declared in a previous manifesto. My final question is—

I am really struggling with this—not with your amendment as such, but with the thought that doctors would actually raise the issue of assisted dying. I cannot, for the life of me, think of a situation where a GP would say to a patient, “We’ve tried everything else; have you considered assisted dying?” I just cannot get my head round the fact that we would be giving GPs the opportunity to have that conversation and I do not even know how they could start it. Would we not be taking healthcare into a completely different sphere if we gave GPs licence to raise assisted dying?

I have a follow-up to the convener’s questions. There is assisted dying legislation in other jurisdictions. Do you feel that elements of the bill differ from other things and therefore require more scrutiny?

Amendment 202 is a simple amendment that asks that, as part of the annual report, a review be undertaken to ensure that the independence of registered medical practitioners is being maintained in practice. That would require data to be anonymised to adhere with the general data protection regulation, and the review itself should be independent, too.

Turning briefly to the amendments in the name of Jackie Baillie and Pam Duncan-Glancy, I feel that it is absolutely fundamental that the services and the system are able to cope and have the capacity required to deliver the bill, and that will include carrying out a review of palliative and social care services. Once again, I have been struck by Pam Duncan-Glancy’s remarks on the quality of life, and I would just like to highlight a simple example in that respect.

Members knew that I would get sport into this somewhere, but in relation to powerchair football, I have been struck by the value of interaction. I want to mention powerchair football for two reasons, the first of which relates to the Ayrshire Tigers. It is evident to me that social interaction and the ability to be social are fundamental to the players’ quality of life, having seen a couple of them unable to participate, because they were unable to get transport. We take that sort of social interaction for granted.

The other reason that I want to highlight the sport is that I never tire of mentioning the trauma that Alexander Stewart had when he played powerchair football against the Scottish national team. He thought that sitting-down motorised sport would be his way of getting involved in sport, and the trauma that he received has given me no end of joy since.

Yes, I will in two seconds. It will be an intervention on an intervention—I like that. I cannot imagine those circumstances because, as Jackie Baillie highlighted, there is a unique relationship between a patient and a doctor, and I suggest that, in and of itself, a GP raising the option of assisted dying is a form of coercion. I cannot imagine a single situation in which a GP could be the person to raise the option of assisted dying.

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].

As an addendum to Douglas Ross’s point, I am concerned that you have not considered the liability of the medical professional if he leaves the room. We talk about other jurisdictions, but our laws and legal processes are different. Has the protection of our medical professionals, and their liability if something goes wrong, been considered?

I am listening intently to what you are saying, and it brings me back to earlier amendments that I was trying to get the committee to agree to, but which were not agreed to, on advance care directives. Such directives would address the exact point that you are making about the patient’s request, should something go wrong. I feel the same as you that there is this idea that nothing will ever go wrong. Consequently, I believe that we need advance care directives. Do you agree with that, and with my suggestion that amendments be lodged at stage 3 to include them in the bill?

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.

I could not agree more with Daniel Johnson—the signal that comes out of the Parliament is incredibly important. As we have already held a session on the bill at stage 2, many of us will have already had responses by email and discussions with members of the general public and the medical profession who have raised concerns.

Liam McArthur talked about precedents for the way in which medication is delivered, but what the bill seeks to do is unprecedented. We are asking medical professionals, who operate on the “Do no harm” principle, to do something that they have never done before, so we have to take their views into consideration and ensure that the likelihood of there being any liability on a medical professional is minimised. That is why, at stage 3, I will bring back advance care directives, and should the committee push back against some of the amendments before us, they will be brought back again.