Seòmar agus comataidhean

Convener, could I seek clarification on when the committee expects to stop today, so that I can let others know for meetings?

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?

On the rare occasions that the drugs did not work when they were administered to a person, if there was no advance care directive in place, what would the doctor or the nurse, or the hospice, do if they did not know what the patient’s wishes were? Surely these amendments would give the patient greater protection in that respect.

I absolutely accept your first point. When I go to Marie Curie or St Columba’s Hospice Care in Edinburgh I am always surprised by how joyful those places are—I often come away feeling much more hopeful than I felt before I went in. I also accept that people go for day treatment, and for many weeks.

I was really pointing to in-patients. The experiences that have been shared with me at Marie Curie and St Columba’s Hospice Care—the two hospices that are in my region—are that people do not go there for long periods as in-patients. I accept that people go there as out-patients, and those services could be offered by other institutions that did not want to opt in.

I will stop there, convener.

Will the member take an intervention on that point?

I do not know whether the member is worried by this, but, for example, in British Columbia, Delta Hospice Society has now had its funding completely removed because it is not willing to offer assisted suicide. Does he recognise that experience in other jurisdictions shows that there is a real threat to charities and people who provide good services that they could lose their funding? Does he recognise that they need to be protected in some way?

Does the member have concerns about future proofing the bill, if it is passed? As funding for hospices is already under pressure, future Governments and Parliaments might look at the act and fund only hospices that also provide such assistance, unless they have an absolute opt-out.

I do not think that that is the key issue. A person can believe lots of things, but it is about what they do in practice. Amendment 193 and those that were lodged by Daniel Johnson and Stuart McMillan give people clarity. We are not saying that somebody cannot believe that assisted suicide is right; all that we are saying is that they cannot practise it in particular institutions. We are not in any way telling people what they can or cannot believe; we are saying that, if they work for a certain care home, they will not be able to carry out the procedure in that home.

The advantage of that is that an older person going to a care home or someone going to a hospice would know exactly what services the institution is going to provide, and they could make the appropriate choice. If I think that, at some point, I might have a terminal illness, I might look for a particular care home that allows me to make that choice. The same is true for other institutions.

I think that I was just asking for the Government to address some of the very specific points that have been raised this morning.

Obviously, I am coming late to the party in speaking on the amendments, and it has been interesting to hear from Mr McArthur and other members.

I come first to my amendment 190. I appreciate others’ remarks about the changes that have been suggested, particularly by Mr McArthur, but I still have concerns that, even if the amendments were agreed to, the provisions would be inadequate and there would still be encroachment on individual conscience. I am concerned that to refer someone is not a neutral act; it is participation in the process. It makes the objector an essential link in the chain that leads to another person’s death. That is not conscientious objection; it is compelled complicity. If we are serious about respecting moral diversity in our health service, we cannot reduce conscience to a paperwork exercise. A doctor or nurse who believes that assisted suicide is wrong must not be forced to facilitate it indirectly. To do so would be to empty the right of conscience of any real meaning.

My amendment goes further than other amendments that we have debated in that it includes not only doctors, nurses and pharmacists, but administrators, who will have to do a lot of work behind the scenes. Even with the amendments lodged by others, if I were a secretary or a personal assistant working for someone in this area, I would be legally required to participate in parts of the process, including referral, recommendation and administration. That means that those who do not agree with assisted suicide would be forced to do something that goes against their moral conscience.

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