Great news: Scotland's Parliament rejected assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I have amazing news.

On March 17, Scotland's parliament voted 69 to 57 to reject Liam McArthur's assisted suicide bill. This is a great victory after the same bill was passed at second reading, in May 2025, by a vote of 70 to 56.

The defeat of Scotland's assisted suicide bill follows the death of the England / Wales Kim Leadbeater assisted suicide bill that has essentially died in the British House of Lords.

Megan Bonar reported for BBC Scotland that Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing, expressed relief.

“Vulnerable people who are sick, elderly or disabled, can so easily feel pressure, whether real or imagined, to end their lives so as not to be a burden on others.

“Parliament’s first responsibility is to protect its most vulnerable citizens from exploitation and abuse by those who may have a financial or emotional interest in their deaths.”

Angus Cochrane reported for BBC that:

Independent MSP Jeremy Balfour - born with no left arm and a right arm that ends at the elbow - said disabled people were "terrified" of assisted dying legislation.

He warned the bill would open "a pandora's box" and said there could be "no meaningful protection" against coercion.

"I'm begging you to consider the consequences for the most vulnerable," Balfour said.

Labour's Pam Duncan-Glancy, who uses a wheelchair, urged MSPs to "choose to make it easier to live than to die".

Others raised questions about protections for medics who did not want to participate in assisted dying, and a lack of oversight on doctors who would sign off on the process.

Critics also argued the focus should be on improving palliative care.

The SNP's Ruth Maguire, while also citing concerns about the cost of the proposals, said: "It's not a free choice if you do not have access to good palliative care."

Most medical associations and medical professionals opposed the assisted suicide bill especially after McArthur was forced to acknowledge that Scotland's parliament did not have the legislative right to ensure conscience rights for medical professionals.

Scottish legislators also faced significant pressure in dealing with the reality of Canada's expanive euthanasia law. Last week Russell Findlay, the leader of Scotland's Conservative party switched his position on the assisted suicide bill and stated:

The second concern relates to the possibility that any legislation, no matter how tightly defined, could be potentially widened by way of later court challenges.

It seems not plausible, but inevitable, that people whose conditions so not qualify for assisted dying as legislated for would take action to extend that right to them.

We have seen examples of this 'slippery slope' in other jurisdictions, and I would be deeply uncomfortable at being responsible for legislation that might end up mutating beyond its original remit to, for example, allowing someone with a mental health condition to compel the state to permaturely end their life.

Clearly Findlay was referring to Canada's experience with euthanasia.

This is the third time that Scotland's parliament defeated a bill to legalize assisted suicide. In 2010 Margo MacDonald's assisted suicide bill was defeated by 85 to 16. Patrick Harvie took up the assisted suicide bill in 2014 with that bill being defeated by a vote of 82 to 36 in 2015.

Dr Gordon Macdonald stated in his Care Not Killing Alliance email that:

This has very much been a marathon, not a sprint, but our supporters have time and again answered the call to engage with MSPs and in so doing laid the groundwork for so many to vote as they did tonight. We will need your help again in the future (“this is coming back”, Liam McArthur told journalists this evening) but for now: Thank you.

The defeat of the McArthur assisted suicide bill is a great victory. The experience in all jurisdictions is that legalizing assisted suicide always results in an expansion of the law. Legalizing assisted killing for some situations will always expand to include more reasons to kill. We are thankful that the Scottish parliament voted NO to assisted suicide.

Scotland assisted suicide vote: eugenics then, euthanasia now.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Madeline Grant was published in the Telegraph on May 13, 2025 in response to the vote on the Scottish assisted suicide bill. Sadly, the Scottish parliament passed the assisted suicide bill (at second reading) by a vote of 70 - 56.

In the name of progress: eugenics then, euthanasia now, Grant argues that in the past, eugenics was considered progressive and look at the atrocities associated with eugenics. 

Today euthanasia is considered progressive. Grant writes:

It was in the name of progress that the Fabian and socialist eugenicists – from Beatrice and Sidney Webb to Bertrand Russell and Marie Stopes – advocated the sterilisation of the disabled and sick during the 20th century. It was in the name of progress that George Bernard Shaw supported “the socialisation of the selective breeding of man”, even, chillingly, proposing the euthanasia of the mentally ill and other members of the “unfit” classes via “extensive use of the lethal chamber”. In short; a very dangerous word indeed. This isn’t just a history lesson either; the groups these people supported still exist. Dignity in Dying, the main advocacy group for assisted dying, was founded by a member of the Eugenics Society and was known until 2006 as The Voluntary Euthanasia Society.

Grant then comments on the current assisted suicide debate in the UK:

In our own day, the same concept is being invoked once more as a sort of unanswerable force. The debate over assisted suicide is intensifying on both sides of the Border this week, as Kim Leadbeater’s Private Members’ Bill returns to Parliament and Holyrood MSPs voted in favour of a similar Bill proposed by Lib Dem Liam McArthur. In her efforts to champion her Bill on social media, the former is emerging as someone with Van Gogh’s ear for diplomacy; both tactless and self-aggrandising. This week she dismissed opponents as “scaremongering and ideological”, while quoting praise of herself from a supporter, describing her as a “social reformer”. At least irony hasn’t been assisted with its death.

"The inconvenient truth," Grant goes on:

is that, in this case progress involves the sidelining and rejection of the very people whose needs it claims to advance. The Royal College of Physicians recently published a statement warning that the Bill’s “deficiencies” render it unsafe for patients and doctors. Was this “scaremongering”? Every user-led disability group opposes the change, as do a majority of palliative care professionals. Are they “ideologues” too?

Grant then refers to the former Scottish Tory Leader, Ruth Davidson's support for assisted suicide because she wants to be on the "right side of history":

It is telling that despite supporting assisted suicide in principle, former Scots Tory Leader Ruth Davidson couldn’t quite endorse the parallel Bill before Holyrood in its current form. Instead, in a column this week, she urges MSPs simply to trust that they will be able to iron out any problems at a later date. She also cites the number of countries around the world offering assisted suicide as if this, in itself, constituted an argument. What many of these jurisdictions actually show is quite the opposite to Davidson’s Panglossian faith that everything will work itself out.

Grant then digs into the deceptive language used in the debate:

A particularly invidious aspect of this debate has been the manipulation of language. Not only is there a tendency to imply, per Leadbeater, that the pro-side has a monopoly on compassion, relatives’ understandable efforts to prevent their loved ones from taking their own lives have sometimes been reframed as “coercion”. During the “expert” witness testimony, one Australian MP referred to “assisted dying” in exquisitely Orwellian fashion, as a form of “suicide prevention”. There has even been some squeamishness about using the word “suicide” at all, though the Bill would by definition amend the 1961 Suicide Act. It’s as if they fear this serious change to the social fabric will be impossible without annexing language to limit what their opponents may say. And now, showing tragedy and farce are far closer than we think, Kim Leadbeater is apparently a “social reformer”.

Grant notes:

The irony is that Leadbeater and her allies no doubt think of themselves and their actions as progressive. Yet each of them is simultaneously engaged in the business of ignoring the voices of the poor and the vulnerable.

Grant concludes by arguing that Leadbeater is doing more to undo social healthcare than Thatcher did with privatisation.

This Bill is so comprehensively at odds with the principles of previous social reform that enacting it will mean rewriting the Bill on which the National Health Service was forged. The legislation is so far-sweeping that the Bill’s proponents may become the first people to undo the basic healthcare principle that life should be preserved. This is worth restating for all the “sensibles” out there; it wasn’t Mrs Thatcher or “Tory privatisation”, but a Labour backbencher who will fundamentally change the stated purpose of the NHS – and in a final irony, will do so not in the name of profit but of progress.

More articles on this topic:

• Rush to legalize assisted suicide (UK) - Have the vulnerable become expendable (Link)?

Britain and Scotland will vote on assisted suicide bills in May

The Care NOT Killing Alliance in the UK sent an update urging supporters to contact elected representatives in (London UK) and in Scotland, to oppose the assisted suicide bills. The message stated:

Dear Friends:

We learned this week that the Leadbeater Bill’s Report Stage will now commence on Friday 16 May, a delay of several weeks, while the Scottish Daily Express reported today that ‘a vote on the private member's Bill from Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur is expected in the first two weeks of next month, and it must take place before May 23.’

In these next few weeks, we all have an opportunity to influence politicians as they weigh up the risks posed by these bills, and while it’s easy to be cynical, a great many are giving this serious and sincere thought. As SNP MSP Michelle Thomson said today:

‘I started looking at it and instinctively, I was in favour of it. I saw my mother die of cancer and all that she went through… But I’m not making decisions just for my mother, I’m not making it just for me, I’m making decisions for huge sectors of society and that’s why I hope that everybody will look into the matter really carefully and consider all these constituent groups too.’

Care NOT Killing urges their supporters to contact elected representatives. The letter continues:

It was reassuring to hear that Health Secretary Wes Streeting will once again vote against the Leadbeater Bill. Remember, he voted FOR a similar bill in 2015 — parliamentarians can and do change position in light of the evidence.

If the law did change, how would legalised assisted suicide sit alongside existing healthcare concerns? It was reported this week that:

‘Hospitals will receive an “incentive payment” for each patient they remove [from their waiting lists], and a payment cap of 5% of a trust’s waiting list is being scrapped, according to documents seen by the Guardian. It means there is no limit to the payments NHS trusts could receive for taking patients off their lists… The strategy is likely to raise concerns among patient charities that some people may be wrongly removed.’

The letter continues with Professor Kevin Yuill of Humanists Against Assisted Suicide and Euthanasia commented:

‘Nothing bad could possibly come of [the Leadbeater Bill’s] provisions that doctors can bring the topic [of assisted suicide] up and that it will be outsourced to for-profit companies. Everything is fine!’

The letter then looks at what is happening in Canada:

Ultimately, what could healthcare look like a few years after legalisation, when the law has already been extended and people have become desensitised? Dr Ramona Coelho, a member of Ontario (Canada)’s MAiD Death Review Committee (MDRC), pointed this week to this story:

‘Mr. C, diagnosed with metastatic cancer, [who had] initially expressed interest in MAiD but then experienced cognitive decline and became delirious. He was sedated for pain management. Despite the treating team confirming that capacity was no longer present, a MAiD practitioner arrived and withheld sedation, attempting to rouse him. It was documented that the patient mouthed “yes” and nodded and blinked in response to questions. Based on this interaction, the MAiD provider deemed the patient to have capacity. The MAiD practitioner then facilitated a virtual second assessment, and MAiD was administered.’

‘If we truly value dignity, we must invest in comprehensive care to prevent patients from being administered speedy death in their most vulnerable moment, turning their worst day into potentially their last.’

They conclude their letter with a statement from former Peterborough MP Lord Jackson has written this week:

‘Vulnerable people across the UK require MPs to survey the horizon, assess the risks and legislate for the weakest. The Bill process so far has proven us to be inept in this. We must do better. Kim Leadbeater must do better. Objectively, this Bill deserves to fail.’

More articles on the topic: 

• British MP who supported assisted suicide is opposing the assisted suicide bill (Link). 
• The UK assisted dying bill gets more dangerous by the day (Link). 
• UK assisted suicide bill is losing support and can be defeated (Link). 
• Follow the money. Members of Scottish parliament accept money from? (Link).
• Scotland's assisted suicide bill is dangerous (Link).

Update on Assisted Suicide bills in Britain, Scotland and Ireland.

Join the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and the Care Not Killing Alliance for a Zoom event on Thursday March 20 at 3pm ET (Toronto Time) (note changed to 3 pm).

Register for the Zoom event in advance (Registration Link).

Alex Schadenberg, Executive Director of the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition and Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO for the Care Not Killing Alliance will provide an update on the assisted suicide bills and debate in Britain, Scotland and Ireland.

Dr Gordon Macdonald

Dr Gordon Macdonald will provide an overview of the current debate concerning the Leadbeater bill that proposes to legalize assisted suicide in England and Wales, the McArthur bill that proposes to legalize assisted suicide in Scotland and the debate in Ireland.

Macdonald and Schadenberg will also discuss the assisted suicide bills in the Isle of Man and Jersey.

Dr Macdonald has led the Care Not Killing Alliance for many years. He works with groups and individuals from multiple points of view.

We will make time for questions and answers at the end.

Register for the Zoom event in advance (Registration Link).

"Follow The Money" --- Members of Scottish Parliament (MSP) accept money from WHERE?

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Liam McArthur received 35,949 pounds ($45,800 US dollars) from euthanasia lobby groups and the US pharmaceutical industry to hire a staff member to lobby for his assisted suicide bill.

John Ferguson, the Sunday Mail political editor reported on December 8 that:

The MSP behind Scotland’s assisted dying bill accepted thousands of pounds from a euthanasia lobby group with links to a tax haven and the US pharmaceutical industry.

Lib Dem Liam McArthur’s register of interests reveal he received £35,949 - with Dignity in Dying providing £11,983 of the total - to fund a member of staff to work on his campaign.

He was also among a group of MSPs who accepted travel, accommodation and meals worth £2,694 each from Dignity in Dying to travel to California to meet advocates of the state’s End of Life Options Act.

Ferguson also reported about other concerning donations:

Dignity in Dying’s sister charity Compassion in Dying received £300,000 from Church Street Trustees - a secretive firm registered in St Helier on Jersey which was named in the notorious Panama Papers data leak.

US Securities Exchange Commission filings show the offshore company is linked to a number of senior business figures and American big pharma interests including NovoCure and Channel Islands firm Volati.

McArthur told Ferguson that he has registered the funding and the source of the money is an issue for Dying in Dignity.

Scottish parliament seeks submissions concerning assisted death bill.

This message was received from the Care Not Killing Alliance (UK). There is a consultation on Liam McArthur's assisted suicide bill. If you wish to make a submission it must be done by August 16. Alex Schadenberg

Dear friends,

The call for evidence launched by the Scottish Parliament’s Health Committee, as part of its scrutiny of Liam McArthur’s assisted suicide bill, closes on Friday 16 August (at 6:00 pm). Individuals and organisations are invited to express their views; we will be submitting evidence, and we encourage all supporters (the call is not restricted to respondents in Scotland) to do likewise, bearing in mind that any change in the law at Holyrood (Scotland) would have ramifications across these islands.

The Committee has published both a short survey and a detailed call for evidence.

The short survey requires answers to only four questions:

• Which of the following best reflects your views on the Bill? *Multiple choice; we recommend "Strongly oppose"
• Which of the following factors are most important to you when considering the issue of assisted dying? *Multiple choice
• Do you have any other comments on the Bill? *Open text - you may wish to consult our guide to the detailed all for evidence.
• How did you find out about this consultation?  *Multiple choice

Anyone can submit evidence to the Scottish parliament. If you have a personal story, that will also suffice.

Scotland's assisted suicide bill allows 16-year-olds with Anorexia to be killed.

Alex Schadenberg

Executive Director, 

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Professor David Jones

Georgia Edkins, the Scottish Political Editor for the Daily Mail reported on April 20, 2024 that 16 year-olds with Anorexia could be approved for assisted suicide under Scotland's assisted dying bill. Edkins reports:

Teenagers with anorexia could apply for state-backed ‘suicide’ under ‘extremely dubious’ laws proposed in Scotland, experts warned last night.

Newly published Holyrood legislation would allow NHS patients to request prescriptions for a life-ending cocktail of drugs that induce a coma, shut down the lungs and eventually stop the heart.

Edkins reporting on comments by ethicist David Jones writes:

David Jones, professor of bioethics at St Mary’s University in London and director of the Anscombe Bioethics Centre, said: ‘It is extremely, extremely dubious.

We’re talking about “assisted dying” as a euphemism, and it’s always assisted suicide.

‘Suicide is something that we should try to seek to prevent and provide alternatives to, whether it’s for an old person or a young person, whether they have progressive disease or disability.’

‘Terminal in the Scottish Bill is defined as someone having a progressive incurable disease from which you could die. It could cover anorexia.

Jones also warned that the assisted suicide bill that is sponsored by Liam McArthur would:

• Let people as young as 16 die before their lives had properly begun;
• Not require someone to be close to death to be eligible for ‘assisted dying’;
• Not make a psychiatric assessment mandatory ahead of the life-ending procedure.

Edkins reported Jones as stating:‘

It is called the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, so that proclaims itself as being restricted to people who are terminally ill, but it defines people that are terminally ill only as people who have a progressive incurable disease, which is at an advanced stage. It doesn’t mean that you’re dying.’

Jones referenced the fact that in Scotland, a person is deemed an adult at 16, whereas in Oregon the age is 18. Based on the definition of terminal illness in the bill, someone with Anorexia could be approved for assisted suicide at the age of 16. Jones states:

‘There have been cases of people with anorexia having assisted dying in Oregon.’

Edkins ends her article by stating:

Perhaps most troubling is Professor Jones’ suggestion that the embattled NHS in Scotland could resort to suggesting death as a viable replacement for treatment.

He said: ‘What you’re starting to see in Canada is that doctors will suggest to patients, “Have you thought of assisted dying”, including people who, for example, have had difficulty getting support for social services to live at home.

‘There’s nothing in the Scottish legislation that prevents that.’

Article: Scotland's Deceptive euthanasia bill redefines terminal illness to include people with disabilities (Link).

Journal of Medical Ethics article: Scottish Support for assisted suicide is weakening.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Scottish Parliament

An article by David Albert Jones was published in the Journal of Medical Ethics on April 15, 2024 explaining that support for assisted suicide in Scotland is weakening.

On 27 March 2024, Liam McArthur introduced his Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill. He said that he was “absolutely convinced” that the legislation would be passed as “there is growing public support for the policy”. Similarly, when the Bill was proposed in 2022 it was argued that public opinion “seems to be shifting in favour of a law change.” Again, a recent article in defence of the Bill appealed to the “increasing and now overwhelming” support in Scotland for a change in the law. This was based on “several polls” cited in the Policy Memorandum that accompanied the Bill.

The Memorandum cites four polls giving 87% (March 2019), 72% (June 2021), 77% (July 2023) and 71% (December 2023) support for “assisted dying”. In addition, a more recent poll (March 2024) of 4,132 adults in Scotland showed 78% in favour.

It is noteworthy that the three polls commissioned by Dignity in Dying Scotland (March 2019, July 2023 and March 2024), generated the highest figures for support. This is in part because the questions referred to terminal illness and included other reassurances. They also asked if people “strongly support[ed]” assisted dying or only “somewhat” or “tend[ed] to” support. Asking in this way ensures that people who are ambivalent but tend to be in favour on balance or in principle are included as supporters.

Jones explains that strong support for assisted suicide is declining:

These polls thus measured how many “strongly support[ed]” legalising assisted dying. This was 55% in 2019, 45% in 2023, and 40% in 2024. It is evident that the level of strong support has declined and that a majority of Scots are no longer strongly in favour, but are ambivalent to some degree or are opposed.

Jones explains that the public is confused by the meaning of the term - assisted dying:

To measure change in support over time, it is important to use the same question and to conduct multiple repeated polling. YouGov provides a bimonthly “tracker” (August 2019 to April 2024) for the questions: “Do you think the law should or should not be changed to allow someone to assist in the suicide of someone suffering from a terminal illness?” and “Do you think the law should or should not be changed to allow someone to assist in the suicide of someone suffering from a painful, incurable but NOT terminal illness?”

Support in Scotland in April 2024, as measured by these questions, was 71% and 41% respectively. This is lower than the polls quoted above in part because of the reference to “assisted suicide” rather than “assisted dying”. There is evidence that many people are confused about what is included in “assisted dying”. A survey conducted in 2021 found that most people thought that this meant either “giving people who are dying the right to stop life-prolonging treatment” (42%) or “providing hospice-type care to people who are dying” (10%).

In any case, the usefulness of the tracker lies less in the snapshot of support and more in capturing change over time. These trackers, each repeated 31 times over five years, clearly show that support for assisted suicide in Scotland has declined measurably.

Support for assisted suicide is less than 50% when it applies to people who are not terminally ill and yet Scotland's euthanasia bill permits people who are not terminally ill to be killed by euthanasia. Jones explains:

The second tracker also shows that support is well under 50% if assisted suicide would be provided to people who are not terminally ill. It might seem that the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill is indeed restricted to people who are terminally ill. However, unlike similar legislation in the United States, New Zealand or Australia, the Scottish Bill defines “terminal illness” with no reference to a person being close to death. The term is used to cover anyone with an advanced progressive condition that would be expected to shorten life if not treated. This would include conditions such as type 1 diabetes. It is unclear if this is what the public understands by the term “terminal illness”.

Jones ends his article by stating that support for assisted suicide is not overwhelming and it is not growing:

Public support for legalisation of assisted suicide in Scotland is thus neither “overwhelming” nor “growing”. Less than half strongly support a change in the law. Less than half want their MP to vote to change in the law. Less than half support assisted suicide for non-terminal conditions (as the proposed Bill seems to include). Few if any regard assisted dying / assisted suicide as being among the most important issues facing Scotland and all indications are that Scottish support for its legalisation has declined markedly in recent years.

MSPs should assess for themselves the merits and/or dangers of the proposed Bill without fearing that they will be out of step with public opinion. Indeed, if they feel ambivalent or hesitant on this issue then they are probably reflecting the views of most people in Scotland.

Scotland's deceptive euthanasia bill redefines terminal illness to include people with disabilities (Link).

Message to Scotland: Don't buy into McArthur's "bait and switch" assisted suicide bill

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I was recently speaking to MSP's in Scotland about the upcoming assisted suicide bill sponsored by Liam McArthur (LibDem MSP). 

During several meetings many of the MSP's suggested that McArthur was promising a "heavier safeguarded" model than previous euthanasia bills that were debated in Scotland. 

My response was that it didn't matter how "heavily safeguarded" the bill is because the goal of the euthanasia lobby is to get the bill passed and expand it later.

McArthur was interviewed on March 24 by BBC Scotland on The Sunday Show where McArthur explained that the new bill will be released on Thursday March 28. McArthur stated the following about the proposed bill:

"I detect a real shift in the political mood, driven in a large part by witnessing countries and states across the world introducing heavily safeguarded provisions of the kind I'm looking to introduce here in Scotland."

He said his proposals would require diagnosis of a terminal illness by two separate doctors and a 14-day cooling off period after which a medical substance could be supplied, to be self-administered.

The reality is that McArthur is describing a bill that is similar to the original Oregon assisted suicide law, a law that was expanded in 2019 and further expanded in 2023.

McArthur stated that the mood in Scotland has shifted based on "heavily safeguarded provisions" but the provisions that he is referring to do not remain in the Oregon or other assisted suicide law provisions in the United States.

While in Scotland several of the MSP's told me that McArthur had invited them to go to California on a "fact finding" trip. California is the prime example of a state that has expanded its law since legalization. 

Recently Senator Blakespear in California introduced Bill SB 1196 an assisted suicide bill that would change the law to specifically allow utilization of the lethal poison by IV (intravenous). (my article on SB 1196)

In 2016 California legalized assisted suicide. California expanded the law in 2021 when it passed Bill SB 380. SB 380 reduced the waiting period from 15 days to 48 hours, it eliminated the final attestation, and it forced doctors who oppose assisted suicide to participate.

In September, 2022, U.S. District Judge Fernando Aenlle-Rocha ruled that California Senate Bill 380, which amended the End of Life Option Act (assisted suicide law) in California, violated the First Amendment rights of doctors by requiring them to participate in assisted suicide. Aenlle-Rocha granted a preliminary injunction barring the state from compelling health care providers to document a patient’s request for assisted suicide. (my article on the decision).

In other words, McArthur is basing his "heavily safeguarded provisions" on an American law that originally contained those provisions but has been expanded and it may be expanded again this year.

Recently I published an article titled The assisted suicide lobby wants to legalize assisted suicide and expand it later. 

In that article I explain that the assisted suicide lobby claim that no legislative creep exists. Yet in the past few years existing assisted suicide laws have been expanded in nearly every state that has legalized assisted suicide by: reducing or eliminating waiting periods, allowing non-doctors to participate in assisted suicide, allowing assisted suicide approvals by Telehealth, expanding the meaning of terminal illness and removing the state residency requirement.

Assisted suicide law expansion bills have been passed in California (2021), Hawai'i (2023), Oregon (2019, 2023), Vermont (2022, 2023) and Washington State (2023). There are several assisted suicide expansion bills being debated in 2024.

For instance, Colorado assisted suicide expansion Bill SB 068 would expand the assisted suicide law by: permitting non-physicians to prescribe the lethal poison, reduces the waiting period from 15 days to 48 hours and it allows the 48 hour waiting period to be waived.

In January Josh Elliott, a three-term member of the Connecticut House, and a sponsor of previous assisted suicide bills was interviewed by Paul Bass for the New Haven Independent on January 4, 2024. Bass reported Elliott as wanting to get a "heavily safeguarded" assisted suicide bill passed and then make amendments later. Since Elliott admitted to his "bait and switch" tactic, 2024 was the first year in the past eleven where no assisted suicide bill was introduced in Connecticut.

J.M. Sorrell, Executive Director of Massachusetts Death with Dignity, was quoted on a similar bill as saying,

“Once you get something passed, you can always work on amendments later.”

My message to Scotland's MSP's is don't buy into McArthur's "bait and switch" assisted suicide bill. 

McArthur realizes that the majority of the MSP's will not support a Canadian style euthanasia bille ha. He has decided to first legalize an Oregon style bill and then expand it later. The reality is, even the American assisted suicide bills have already been expanded