Seòmar agus comataidhean

I would have more sympathy with that view if we were going down the road of Miles Briggs’s amendment 198. If there was a list that was available to somebody who wanted this, they could see who was and who was not willing to facilitate it. That would be very clear. I would be able to look on a website and see who was willing and who was not willing to do this and I could then go through that process. That is one of the issues.

I also think that the amendments do not deal with those at an administrative level who would be asked to do things that go against their views. I am worried that, again, we are going to exclude people from a workplace environment where they would be happy to do everything else that might be required, but not this particular thing. We may end up losing people from those workplaces.

I appreciate what Mr McArthur said. However, my amendment 190 is not about trying to obstruct patient choice, but about ensuring that individuals who are against assisted suicide are not drawn into it. To compel participation in assisted suicide, even as a referrer, is to turn conscience into mere compliance. My amendment, if it is accepted, would give protection in that regard.

My amendments 191 and 192 are follow-on amendments. Again, I accept what Mr McArthur says, but this area of law is new and depends on individual choices. That is why I think that the burden of proof should be reversed from what is in place for other areas of law.

Amendment 191 specifies that if

“a claim of conscientious objection”

is alleged to have

“been improperly or falsely made”,

the responsibility to prove or justify that claim

“lies with the person or institution”

making the allegation, rather than with the individual who is exercising the objection. The rationale is simple: it is to protect individuals and organisations that conscientiously refuse to participate, ensuring that they are not unfairly required to defend their ethical or moral stance.

Amendment 192—[Interruption.]. I am happy to take an intervention.

The issue is about protecting the individual. Wherever the claim comes from and whatever proceedings follow, it is about ensuring that the individual who is being accused does not have to prove the case, and that it is for the other party, whoever that is, to prove the case.

I move on to amendment 193, which is, in some ways, similar to the amendments from Stuart McMillan and Daniel Johnson. I would be deeply concerned if we were to say to hospices and other charitable organisations whose ethical framework defines their care as “life affirming” that they had to go through this procedure. To compel them to participate or risk losing public funding—as we have heard with regard to Switzerland—would violate their moral integrity and betray the trust of those they serve. The amendment seeks to put that right by effectively expanding section 18.

If healthcare providers are going to be exempt, surely hospices, hospitals, care homes and hostels that formally have ethical, religious or philosophical policies that refuse to permit assisted suicide must be allowed to opt out. If not, we are going to see hospices or organisations not taking on certain individuals so that they are not in breach of the law.

We could also see the reverse, with people who want care or help—

Let me just finish this sentence.

People who want help would not be taken in because providers do not want to have to move them or do something else.

Just let me develop this point.

We already have that in other areas of law. We say that people have to have certain beliefs or follow certain practices to take certain jobs. It is not a new concept, and it is important to note that we are not telling people that they must think in a certain way. All that we are saying is that particular homes, hospices, refuges or whatever will not carry out the procedure. That gives clarity to staff and to those who might want to use the service.

With regard to your first point, the overwhelming majority of people in Scotland now go to hospices at a very late stage. They do not go there for weeks or months; they go there for the very last few days of their lives. Very few people will go to a hospice for a long period of time. That is not how the hospice movement works in Scotland.

The convener will kill me for saying this, but I am happy to do so. That was perhaps an inappropriate word to use.

I would draw a distinction. Perhaps we will need to come back to this at stage 3. If it was a hospice or a physical building that had the opt-out, I would say that they would be excluded from doing that.

More and more people are choosing to die at home, and their care package might be run by a hospice. If an individual decided later on that they wanted to die at home through assisted suicide—assisted dying—that would be different, because the medical professional would be coming into their home. However, an organisation must be able to keep its ethos.

One of my biggest concerns is that, as with all legislation, we are not just deciding for tomorrow, next year or the year after; we are deciding for future generations. We all know the financial pressures that hospices are facing, and 50 per cent of their money comes from the Scottish Government. My worry would be that future Governments—not this Government or the next one—would say that hospices would get the funding only if the procedure was offered as part of their service. There would be nothing, as the bill is drafted, or even with the amendments that Mr McArthur has lodged, to prevent a Government from doing that. That is my big concern

We should put in place a safeguard so that organisations that offer brilliant services—we all agree about that—would not be forced to do something that they are philosophically opposed to or miss out on funding. That is where I am coming from.

Will the member take an intervention?

I would have more sympathy with that view if we were going down the road of Miles Briggs’s amendment 198. If there was a list that was available to somebody who wanted this, they could see who was and who was not willing to facilitate it. That would be very clear. I would be able to look on a website and see who was willing and who was not willing to do this and I could then go through that process. That is one of the issues.

I also think that the amendments do not deal with those at an administrative level who would be asked to do things that go against their views. I am worried that, again, we are going to exclude people from a workplace environment where they would be happy to do everything else that might be required, but not this particular thing. We may end up losing people from those workplaces.

I appreciate what Mr McArthur said. However, my amendment 190 is not about trying to obstruct patient choice, but about ensuring that individuals who are against assisted suicide are not drawn into it. To compel participation in assisted suicide, even as a referrer, is to turn conscience into mere compliance. My amendment, if it is accepted, would give protection in that regard.

My amendments 191 and 192 are follow-on amendments. Again, I accept what Mr McArthur says, but this area of law is new and depends on individual choices. That is why I think that the burden of proof should be reversed from what is in place for other areas of law.

Amendment 191 specifies that if

“a claim of conscientious objection”

is alleged to have

“been improperly or falsely made”,

the responsibility to prove or justify that claim

“lies with the person or institution”

making the allegation, rather than with the individual who is exercising the objection. The rationale is simple: it is to protect individuals and organisations that conscientiously refuse to participate, ensuring that they are not unfairly required to defend their ethical or moral stance.

Amendment 192—[Interruption.]. I am happy to take an intervention.

Thank you, convener. Before I start, I will make a point of order about the Scottish Government’s non-presence at this meeting. I understand that the Scottish Government is neutral on the bill, but we have heard a number of comments from Liam McArthur this morning about what the Scottish Government is and is not doing with the UK Government. Has the Scottish Government chosen not to be here, or has it not been asked to come? It would have been helpful to have an update from the Scottish Government on the amendments that we are considering. Was it the Government’s choice not to come, or was it deemed not to be appropriate?