Scotland's Law Society publishes concerns with euthanasia bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have written several commentaries on euthanasia and assisted suicide bills. I have found that most of the legislation is not properly defined. In fact, I believe the Canada's euthanasia law was intentionally written with vague language that lacked definition to enable it to expand over time.

Elaine Coull, the Convener of the Law Society of Scotland’s Health and Medical Law published a critique on August 22 of Scotland's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults Bill which is currently being debated in the Scottish parliament. Coull wrote:

“We have serious concerns about the competence of this Bill in relation to the European Convention on Human Rights and mental health and capacity legislation. In particular, the bill would appear at odds with key elements of the Age of Legal Capacity Act 1991.

The United Nations Committee on Disability Rights has stated in more than one report that Canada's euthanasia law contravenes the rights of people with disabilities (Link) (Link). 

Coull then questions the role of medical professionals.

“The proposed role for medical professionals is similarly a concern. The Bill’s provisions are not fit for purpose around key questions such as who can provide a medical assessment and what happens if a doctor does not believe the requirements for assisted dying have been met.

Coull continues by questioning the role of solicitors in the law:

“We also have concerns that the role of solicitors outlined in the Bill may not be appropriate or in the best interests of the terminally ill person. Solicitors are called on to act as proxies to sign documents on behalf of people who cannot do so for themselves.

“This is primarily a notarial function, but the Bill requires that the solicitor reaches a judgement of the person’s understanding of the effect of the document. We are seriously concerned that a legal professional may not be the best person to make judgements on capacity. 

Finally Coull questions the length of time before the law would be reviewed:

“We note that the Bill would require review after five years, which in our view is far too long a period. Given the gravity and impact of the subject matter, it is imperative that the legislation can be updated in response to issues which come to light as soon as possible after it passes.”

Scotland needs to fully examine what has happened with Canada's euthanasia law and then reject legalizing it. People need Care not Death.