Scottish Conservative Leader now opposes assisted suicide bill.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Scottish Parliament

Russell Findlay, the leader of Scotland's Conservative party has switched his position on the assisted suicide bill that is scheduled to go to a vote on March 17, 2026.

In May 2025, Finlay voted in favour of Scotland's assisted suicide bill, time had passed by a vote of 70 - 56. The Herald reported that Findlay backed the general principle of the bill but is now opposing the bill.

According to Andrew Learmonth who writes for the Herald, Finlay is the third MSP who supported the bill and now oppose the bill. Colin Smyth, who also supported the bill, has been suspended from parliament while being investigated for possessing indecent images of children and voyerism.

Findlay stated on X that:

"However, at the time of voting for the principle of the legislation at State One I also expressed some misgivings about elements of it.

...I am not able to vote for the bill at stage three.

My reasons include the two primary concerns that I raised at Stage One.

The first is that risk that people could be coerced into ending their own lives. Not everyone is fortunate enough to have a loving supportive family.

There are already cases of unscrupulous relatives, or 'trusted' medical or legal professionals, exploiting people for financial gain. As a journalist, I reported on the harm caused by Scotland's system of legal self-regulation which remains woefully inadequate in terms of consumer protection.

And even without any coercion from others, some people may feel pressured because they think they have become a 'burden' on loved ones.

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. 

Findlay also commented on the fact that Scotland's assisted suicide bill cannot protect conscience rights for health professionals since medical regulation is the pervue of the British parliament.

We thank Russell Findlay for changing his position on the dangerous assisted suicide bill. I suggest that his two primary concerns cannot be limited by a tighter bill, but should always be seen as strong reasons for defeating life and death assisted suicide legislation.

Scottish Proposal Would Ban Assisted Suicide Prevention

This article was published by National Review online on October 31, 2025.

Wesley Smith

By Wesley J Smith

Assisted suicide is not legal in Scotland — I have traveled there three times to fight that agenda — but it is a looming threat again. And now, an amendment to the legalization bill has been proposed that would prohibit prevention efforts at or near places where suicidal people’s lives would be ended. From the ADF International press release:

A Scottish parliamentarian and member of the Health Committee, Patrick Harvie MSP, has proposed an amendment to Scotland’s controversial “assisted suicide” bill that would criminalise discussion of suicide prevention within a large, undefined public area surrounding any building where an assisted suicide might take place.

The vague proposal would forbid any attempts to “influence” a person’s decision to undergo an assisted suicide, such as through conversation with a family member or the display of a suicide prevention poster.

Holy cow! Is Scottish nihilism so thick that it would actually criminalize efforts to save lives? We’ll see. But I guess we shouldn’t be surprised, as advocates oppose the right of medical conscience that would allow professionals to opt out of all complicity in killing patients or assisting their suicides.

Also, this would seem to imply that there will be assisted suicide clinics. And indeed, there is a “MAID house” in Canada where patients go to be killed.

What a world, what a world.

Response to Scotland assisted suicide bill: Disabled people are "not better off dead"

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Liz Carr & Pam Duncan-Glancy

Craig Paton reported for the Independent on May 13, 2025 on the Not Dead Yet UK rally outside Holyrood (Scottish parliament) as the Liam McArthur assisted suicide bill was debated and voted on. 

The rally opposing assisted suicide featured actress Liz Carr and Scottish Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy.

Paton reported that Silent Witness star Liz Carr told campaigners outside the Scottish Parliament that:

“I am so fed up of having to answer strangers’ questions, even in this day and age, who think that being us must be the worst thing imaginable,” she said to campaigners, which included a number of disabled people.

“That having pain, having difficulty with everyday activities, must mean that it would be better if we were dead – that is not the case.”

Paton reported that Liz Carr qualifies for assisted suicide under the bill.

“But it also has a definition that I would qualify under, I would define myself as a disabled person, but actually the definition of having a progressive condition, I would come under that.

“So the potential for this to include far more than just those with true terminal illnesses … those as well with degenerative conditions, is what concerns so many of us and so many of the people that are here today.”

Scottish Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy, who strongly opposes assisted suicide, also spoke at the rally. Paton reported:

Addressing the dozens of campaigners outside Holyrood, Ms Duncan-Glancy said: “If any of my colleagues are in any doubt whatsoever, if in doubt: don’t.”

She added: “The risk is too high.

“And so I hope that my colleagues will listen carefully to that and will not support this legislation this afternoon.

“I know that I will, on behalf of all of you, go in there and fight for out lives.”

The bill passed at second reading by a vote of 70 to 56. The bill will now go to committee and a final vote is expected later this year.

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)?

New Polling Reveals Strong Public Concern Over Assisted Dying Bill in Scotland

Media Release - Not Dead Yet UK

Today (Tuesday 13 May), the day on which MSPs will vote on The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, Not Dead Yet UK are publishing the results of polling conducted on our behalf by Whitestone Insights in relation to the views held by Scots on the impact of this proposed legislation.

The polling shows significant concern from Scots that introducing assisted dying will have a negative impact on disabled people, and shows even stronger concern from people polled who had disabilities. Online interviews were held between 2 and 7 May reaching 1088 people. 298 self-identified as having a disability.

Over 6 in 10 (62%) Scots agree that disabled people who struggle to access the health, social care and other support they need, given the current state of the NHS and social care funding, may be more likely to seek assisted suicide. This rises to over 7 in 10 (71%) for people polled who had a disability.

Two-thirds of (66%) Scots agree that the Scottish Parliament should prioritise improving access to care for disabled people before considering whether to introduce assisted suicide. This rises to over three (76%) for people polled who had a disability.

Disability groups have made it clear that Holyrood should not introduce assisted dying to Scotland but are being ignored by MSPs who appear to be intent on changing the law. Three-quarters (75%) of Scots agree that the views of disabled people and the groups representing their interests should be properly taken into account in the debate surrounding whether to introduce assisted suicide.This rises to 84% for people polled who had a disability.

Pam Duncan-Glancy, MSP for Glasgow, said:

“These statistics show the public share my concerns that legalising assisted dying at a time when health and social care budgets are under sustained pressure is a real risk to people’s lives”

Comment from Mike Smith, former Commissioner at the Equality and Human Rights Commission, Chair of its Disability Committee and spokesperson for Not Dead Yet UK said:

“It’s clear from this polling that a significant majority of Scots agree that disabled people’s lives will be threatened if this legislation is passed.

Coercion comes in many forms, whether it’s intentional or more subtle. Most Scots agree some disabled people could feel be encouraged to end their lives even if they don’t want to.

The very existence of this wide-reaching legislation itself would send a message from the state that it would be better for disabled people to opt for assisted suicide. This is hardly surprising when two thirds of people agree assisted suicide could be used as a cost-cutting exercise.

In an environment where people struggle to access the health and social care they need to live a life with dignity, this is not the right time to be risking people’s lives.

The mantra of the disability rights movement is “nothing about us without us”. Nearly 90% of those with a view agree, yet many organisations representing disabled people feel their voices have been ignored in this debate.

In the survey results, disabled people were more likely to agree with every single statement.They know the reality of their lives and how hard they can be. Their voices must be heard and their fears not ignored.

Given 80% of Scots agree that improved access to care has to come before assisted suicide is considered, we urge all MSPs to vote against this bill next Tuesday. It is dangerous and will imperil people’s lives. MSPs should be protecting the right to life for the many whose voices are not as loud as the well-funded campaign to change the law.”

Highlights

Nearly 6 in 10 (59%) Scots agree that disabled people who feel they are a burden on family, friends or society may feel a sense of responsibility to access an assisted death if assisted dying is legalised. Only 23% disagreed (Question 1a). This rises to two-thirds (66%) for people polled who had a disability.

Over 6 in 10 (62%) Scots agree that disabled people who struggle to access the health, social care and other support they need, given the current state of the NHS and social care funding, may be more likely to seek assisted suicide. (Question 1b) This rises to over 7 in 10 (71%) for people polled who had a disability.

Two-thirds of (66%) Scots agree that the Scottish Parliament should prioritise improving access to care for disabled people before considering whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1c)

This rises to over three-quarters (76%) for people polled who had a disability.

55% of Scots agree to 27% disagree that there is a risk that some disabled people could be or feel encouraged to end their lives even though they do not want to. (Question 1d) This rises to two-thirds (66%) for people polled who had a disability.

75% of Scots agree that the views of disabled people and the groups representing their interests should be properly taken into account in the debate surrounding whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1e) This rises to 84% for people polled who had a disability.

54% of Scots agree, versus 28% who disagree that there is a risk that introducing assisted suicide could be used as a cost-cutting exercise instead of providing more expensive care and support to people who need it. (Question 1f) This rises to two-thirds (66%) for people polled who had a disability.

Another way of presenting - If ‘don’t knows’ are removed:

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, nearly three-quarters (72.2%) agreed that disabled people who feel they are a burden on family, friends or society may feel a sense of responsibility to access an assisted death if assisted dying is legalised (Question 1a). This rises to 75.6% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, three-quarters (75.7%) agree that disabled people who struggle to access the health, social care and other support they need, given the current state of the NHS and social care funding, may be more likely to seek assisted suicide. (Question 1b) This rises to 80.6% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, 8 in 10 (80.2%) Scots agree that the Scottish Parliament should prioritise improving access to care for disabled people before considering whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1c) This rises to 84.9% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, over two-thirds (67.4%) agree that there is a risk that some disabled people could be or feel encouraged to end their lives even though they do not want to. (Question 1d) This rises to 75.3% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, almost 9 in 10 (89.3%) agree that the views of disabled people and the groups representing their interests should be properly taken into account in the debate surrounding whether to introduce assisted suicide. (Question 1e) This rises to 91.9% for people polled who had a disability.

If ‘don’t knows’ are removed, two-thirds (66%) agree that there is a risk that introducing assisted suicide could be used as a cost-cutting exercise instead of providing more expensive care and support to people who need it.. (Question 1f)

This rises to 74.6% for people polled who had a disability.

Background information

Disabled Peoples Organisations in Scotland have come out strongly against the McArthur Bill.This included the following organisations that have issued a joint letter calling on MSPs to oppose the Bill:

• Disability Equality Scotland.
• Inclusion Scotland. 
• Glasgow Centre for Inclusive Living. 
• Glasgow Disability Alliance. 
• People First. 
• Self Directed Support Scotland.

A Canadian man, Roger Foley, has written powerfully in the ‘Herald’ of his experience as a disabled man living in Canada (where the law changed in 2016):

“As Canada has expanded its assisted dying law, I have faced neglect, verbal abuse, and denial of essential care. I’ve been told my care needs are too much work, and my life has been devalued. Worse still, I have been approached and told by healthcare staff to consider opting for Medical Aid in Dying (MAiD). Instead of offering compassionate support to alleviate my suffering, it is suggested to me that I should end my life.”

Scotland cannot follow this path - the risk is too great, regardless of any good intent on the part of Liam McArthur.

Heart-wrenching lessons from Canada's euthanasia regime.

This article was published in the Scotland Herald on November 12, 2024 titled: Heart-wrenching lessons from Canada's Assisted Dying regime.

By Dr Ramona Coelho

Twenty years ago, just out of medical school, I couldn’t have imagined that vulnerable patients might one day feel their suffering was so poorly dealt with that they'd ask their doctor to end their lives. Since our country, Canada, legalised Medical Assistance in Dying (MAiD) in 2016, we have seen over 60,000 MAiD deaths by 2023, with exponential yearly growth rates. Quebec’s recent report reveals that their MAiD annual death rate has surpassed 7%, and they can’t even assess the quality of palliative care provided.

The Canada I grew up in valued dignity and protected the vulnerable. Now, inadequate care and weak safeguards are pushing Canadians with disabilities toward assisted death. A recent report from an Ontario government committee I sit on confirms the warnings of Canadian and United Nations human rights experts: people are choosing death because they lack essential supports and services.

Take the report’s review of a man in his 40s with inflammatory bowel disease. Isolated, unemployed, and struggling with mental illness and addiction, he depended on family for housing and financial support.

Rather than receiving care for his mental health, a psychiatrist asked if he knew about MAiD. In the end, a MAiD provider personally drove him to the location where he ended his life — without input from his family, despite their deep concerns. Canada claims to have a social and health safety net, but in his case, was he not pushed toward death?

There are countless other stories like his — stories revealed in reports, the media, and those that I now frequently encounter first hand. Every time I hear them, I’m reminded that what was meant to be an exceptional option has come at an unacceptable cost.

I see patients who are trapped in a system that doesn’t care enough for them. For many, MAiD is the only “compassionate” option when palliative care, mental health support, and basic social services are inaccessible.

These stories are heart-wrenching, and they are far from rare. The report reviews the case of a woman with multiple chemical sensitivities who applied for MAiD because she couldn’t find housing that met her medical needs. She didn’t want to die — she wanted to live in a way that felt safe and supported. But when faced with few options, death seemed to be the only choice.

I care for many elderly and disabled patients, those battling loneliness, isolation, and the quiet anguish of feeling like a burden due to societal neglect. In Canada, MAiD is routinely raised to the elderly and disabled as a care option — sometimes even before palliative care is explored.

I recall a conversation with a man who felt he was no longer needed, that his family would be better off financially if he chose MAiD. I’ve also seen families pressuring elderly relatives, concerned about the financial burden of supporting them. It breaks my heart that, in Canada today, death can seem easier to arrange than creating a safe supportive community where everyone feels valued and connected.

As I prepare to testify in Scotland, I think of the patients I’ve seen swept along by a system that no longer protects them.

In 2016, MAiD was meant for those at the end of life, with reassurances that it would never be offered as a "solution" for social suffering. But those promises have crumbled, replaced by an increasing push for accessibility.

Today, in Ontario, most patients choosing MAiD who are not dying come from marginalised, poor backgrounds. They are younger, with a higher percentage being women (61%). These groups are more vulnerable, often suffering from social deprivation that could be treated with the right support, yet MAiD is offered as a quicker option than suicide prevention and care.

Worryingly, MAiD recipients often lack adequate mental health and disability supports. In Ontario, only 8.6% of those not dying who chose MAiD were offered housing support, and only 6% were offered income support. Those not dying but accessing MAiD are less likely to list an immediate family member as their next of kin — often naming a friend, lawyer, or healthcare provider instead, signalling a stark lack of social support.

The situation continues to worsen. When life’s difficulties become unbearable, MAiD is now presented as an answer, rather than addressing the root causes of despair. How have we, as a society, reached a point where death can sometimes be offered more easily and as a less costly solution than investing in social and mental health services, things that make life worthwhile?

Individual autonomy has been used as an argument to blow open access to MAiD. Mental illness as a sole medical condition to access MAiD will be allowed in 2027, and federal consultations about MAiD advance directives are currently underway.

Quebec has taken matters further, breaking the criminal code by allowing advance directives for MAiD, simply requesting non-prosecution for offenders. Our federal joint parliamentary committee on MAiD has recommended MAiD for children deemed capable of making their own healthcare decisions.

Look at Canada today and ask if this is the reality you want for your own people. Our experiences show that the road to legalising assisted dying is a slippery one. It starts with promises of compassion that have led to a system where some patients feel pushed toward death. This is the opposite of autonomy and choice – it is desperation and structural coercion to die. I would not wish this reality upon any nation.

If Scotland truly wants to offer compassion, it should strengthen palliative care and provide social support that help people live with dignity. Compassion is not offering death to those who feel like burdens or are lonely (which are highly cited reasons for choosing MAiD in Canada) — it’s lifting that burden by creating a society where people feel valued, and every person feels supported and safe.

Previous articles by Dr Ramona Coelho.

• Canadians with disabilities are needlessly dying by euthanasia (Link).
• Canada's assisted dying regime should not be expanded to include children (Link).
• Euthanasia for those with mental illness should not be on the table (Link).

Dr Ramona Coelho is a family physician whose practice largely serves marginalised persons in London, Ontario. She is a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and co-editor of the upcoming book Unravelling MAID in Canada: Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide as Medical Care. She presented evidence to Holyrood on Liam McArthur MSP's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill.

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.

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).

When the right to die becomes a duty to die.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition.

Euthanasia and assisted suicide are currently being debated in England, Scotland, Ireland, Jersey and the Isle of Man. Each jurisdiction is debating a different proposal.

Sonia Sodha

Sonia Sodha wrote an excellent opinion column that was published in the Guardian on April 7, 2024. Sodha wonder who will step in to save the most at risk? and she states: Proponents of legalising assisted dying are right to stop and think of the possible unintended consequences. Sodha explains:

It’s rare to get a politician who openly admits they are torn on an issue, but in recent days there have been two striking examples. First, Wes Streeting, Labour’s shadow health secretary, admitted that though he voted to legalise assisted dying a few years ago, he feels conflicted. Then Nicola Sturgeon, former Scottish first minister, wrote a piece saying that, with new Scottish legislation on the table, the reservations she expected to subside are becoming stronger.

Sodha also supported euthanasia but has now changed her position. Sodha explains:

A decade ago, I would have supported assisted dying out of a respect for personal autonomy and a desire to alleviate suffering. Today, I understand these objectives are not standalone but need to be weighed against the impact on those for whom an abstract liberal notion like autonomy is highly simplistic, and the state-sanctioned wrongful deaths that seem to me impossible to avoid.

Sodha further explains why she now opposes euthanasia:

The first prompt for my reappraisal has been my evolving understanding of the complexity of relationships. We are not all autonomous islands floating in a sea of humanity; we are highly influenced by each other and by cultural norms. Writing about domestic abuse has opened my eyes to the extent that coercively controlling relationships drive people to do things because others want them to. Of course there will be women who get a terminal diagnosis, whose partners have been emotionally abusive to them for years – telling them their life isn’t worth living – who will come under intolerable pressure to opt for assisted dying. How can we ignore that around a third of female suicides are thought to be related to intimate partner abuse? Or that some men who violently kill their sick wives rely on defences such as “mercy killing” and “suicide pacts”, sometimes very effectively? Even the fact that men are much more likely than women to leave their partners after a terminal diagnosis feels salient to understanding the gendered implications.

Sodha explains how the risk of coercion is a wider issue:

The risk of coercion goes beyond intimate partners in a society riven with ageism and anti-disability prejudice; what happened to older people in care homes during Covid is just one example. More than a fifth of people over 65 have experienced physical, emotional, financial or sexual abuse. There are relatives who will find ways – perhaps quite subtly, even unintentionally – of hinting to people with a terminal diagnosis who need round-the-clock care that they should opt for assisted dying. How would that make you feel? Almost half of people who chose assisted death in Oregon in 2022 cited concern about being a burden.

Then there is the internal pressure that arises from some feeling that they ought to do it to save relatives difficulty and financial consequences: where the right to die becomes the duty to die. That message will be reinforced at a societal level; Times columnist Matthew Parris recently argued in a widely condemned column that assisted dying could help address the cost of an ageing population; that there are those willing to be honest about this should give serious pause for thought. Moreover, palliative care doctors talk about how the wish to die is not stable, and often abates in terminally ill patients in the wake of an initial diagnosis, and can be affected by depression, which is hard to diagnose.

Sodha then refers to the International evidence with legalised euthanasia.

The most cited example is Canada, where a limited form of medical assistance in dying (MAiD) was legalised in 2016 for people with “grievous and irremediable medical conditions” with assurances about its narrow scope. Today, that definition has been interpreted to include a person with severe sensitivities to chemicals unable to access appropriate housing from the state, and there have been reports of officials promoting assisted dying to people with disabilities applying for government assistance and medical professionals trying to coerce people into it. A parliamentary committee has recommended MAiD should be extended to some sick children and it is set to be expanded to people with chronic mental illness. In the Netherlands, euthanasia is an option for people who are autistic and lonely and is about to be extended to children of all ages. In Oregon, where the law has remained more stable, terminal conditions today include arthritis and anorexia.

Sodha comments on the House of Lords debate that assured people that safeguards can be maintained. Sodha writes:

Medical professionals are not trained in or necessarily any good at detecting coercive control; judges will have limited evidence to make their own call. In the family courts, judges can fail to detect coercive control even when confronted with detailed evidence about intra-familial relationships. Narcissistic abusers can be highly adept at fooling professionals. What level of outside influence is considered too much, how is it measured, and how sure must a judge be, given life and death is at stake, surely rendering the balance of probability evidentiary threshold usually applied in the family courts inappropriate?

Sadha criticized the House of Lords debate by writing:

In the House of Lords debate, there was a marked failure to engage with these detailed concerns. Some claimed there is no evidence of problems abroad, as if coercively influenced wrongful deaths would magically reveal themselves after the fact. One only need look at the fight to reveal the true number of hidden homicides of women by their abusers to understand the naivety in that and, in somewhere like Oregon, the system is simply not set up to catch wrongful deaths. With brutal utilitarian honesty, former supreme court president Lord Neuberger acknowledged there would be abuses, but argued the benefits for those acting autonomously would outweigh them.

Sodha concludes by challenging politicians to examine the complexity of the issue. She writes:

We live in a social media-driven world characterised by excessive moral certainty, in which powerful individual stories that invoke strong emotions can dominate the discourse to the detriment of the voiceless. There is a real risk that a law gets passed without any of these devastating concerns being addressed. Assisted dying is not a right-left issue, but it garners more support from MPs on the left, including Keir Starmer, and a Labour government might feel under pressure to introduce big reforms that don’t cost money given its self-imposed fiscal constraints. That is why voices like Streeting’s and Sturgeon’s are so important; we desperately need politicians willing to acknowledge that assisted dying is one of the most complex and fraught ethical questions they will ever be asked to confront.

More articles on this topic:

• Warning to Ireland. If euthanasia is legalized as a cure for suffering, then suffering people will be "cured" by euthanasia! (Link). 
• Autistic healthy 28-year-old Dutch woman scheduled to die by euthanasia (Link). 
• Netherlands 2023 euthanasia report. A 23% increase in euthanasia for psychological suffering (Link).

Scotland's deceptive euthanasia bill redefines terminal illness to include people with disabilities

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director

Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Scottish Parliament

On March 28, 2024, Liam McArthur (LibDem) MSP introduced the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill bill that is expected to receive its first debate sometime this fall in Scotland's parliament.

The language of the legislation is everything.

McArthur's euthanasia bill is deceptive. It redefines terminal illness to allow for euthanasia of people with disabilities who are not terminally ill. It provides full legal immunity to doctors or nurse practitioners who are willing to participate in the act. 

I was recently in Scotland meeting MSP's and sharing Canada's experience with euthanasia. Many of the MSP's had been lobbied by members of Dying in Dignity who told them that Scotland will not have the same experience with euthanasia as Canada. I told them that Canadians were told, during Canada's euthanasia debate, the same thing concerning the experience in the Netherlands and Belgium. The reality is that Canada is worse than those jurisdictions in many ways.

Getting to the crux of the bill

McArthur claims that the bill is limited to terminally ill people. In fact the bill does not require that the person have a terminal illness. The bill redefines terminal illness in the following manner:

For the purposes of this Act, a person is terminally ill if they have an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death.

McArthur redefines terminal illness to include people with irremediable medical conditions or people with disabilities. By redefining terminology McArthur can claim to limit euthanasia to terminally ill people while allowing euthanasia for people with disabilities who are not terminally ill.

McArthur's bill is not clearly limited to assisted suicide. McArthur's bill uses the term assistance to end their own life, but it does not appear to limit the act to assisted suicide. Instead it employs the statement -- uses the substance.

Nowhere in the bill does it state that the person must self-ingest or "take the substance." Even in the declaration it states: "I wish to be provided assistance to die" but it does not define it as self-ingesting.

McArthur's bill does not limit the participation to physicians. The bill refers to registered medical practitioners, medical practitioners and health professionals but it doesn't differentiate them. It defines health professionals as:

(a) a registered medical practitioner, 

(b) a registered nurse, 

(c) a registered pharmacist (within the meaning of section 108(1) of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978), 

Under McArthur's bill it would be impossible to prosecute medical practitioners who have approved and participated in a euthanasia death outside of the parameters or "spirit" of the law. The bill only requires that the medical practitioner be "of the opinion" that the person meets the criteria of the law.

The same term "of the opinion" is used in Canada's euthanasia law. The law only requires the medical practitioner to be "of the opinion".  When a case, such as Donna Duncan's was investigated, the final determination was that nothing was done outside of the law. It is impossible to prosecute a medical practitioner when all they need to be is "of the opinion" that the person fits the criteria of the law. This gives medical practitioners full immunity when killing their patients.

McArthur's "assisted dying" bill claims to legalize assisted suicide for terminally ill adults.

In reality McArthur's bill legalizes assisted suicide and may legalize euthanasia (homicide) for people who are not required to be terminally ill and might have an illness or condition (disability) from which they are unable to recover.

By redefining terminal illness McArthur can claim that he has introduced a "tight" bill with strong safeguards when in fact he has introduced a wide bill that allows doctors and nurse practitioners to kill disabled people who are not terminally ill.