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.

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 assisted suicide bill is dangerous.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Professor Allan House

Assisted suicide bills will be debated in Scotland and the UK this year. An article by Professor Allan House was published in The Herald on October 14. House examines Scotland's assisted suicide bill and concludes that the:

Bill falls far short of containing the sort of safeguards we would expect in any other area of care for people with serious physical illness or those who are suicidal. In my view, it is a danger to vulnerable people and should not be allowed to pass into law.

House provides excellent insight. He states:

Throughout my career, I’ve worked to help people struggling with the impact of serious illness who may feel overwhelmed, unsupported, or suicidal. My profession has had a united approach on this. We seek to alleviate suffering while protecting the vulnerable and suicidal.

In the debate about assisted suicide a common concern, even among those who support the idea in theory, is whether a particular piece of legislation can have sufficient safeguards to protect vulnerable people. I’ve studied McArthur's proposals closely and concluded that the safeguards outlined fail to offer any real reassurance to those worried about the risks.

House brings up a good example of how assisted suicide legislation fails. He writes:

To understand why, it helps to consider a case study. Picture a 45-year-old woman who’s lived with multiple sclerosis for ten years. She has had two relapses since her diagnosis but lives independently and uses a wheelchair for trips outside her house. Going to see her doctor one day, she says she feels like ending her life. How should the doctor respond?

Under our current approach, a doctor would seek to understand more. He or she would discuss the reasons for their patient’s thinking, her personal circumstances, and consider her history of physical or mental health problems. They would want to involve others such as a partner or next of kin. They may then advise a referral to a psychiatrist – especially if the doctor did not have expertise in responding to suicidal thoughts. Work towards a more hopeful outlook and rewarding life would follow.

House explains the problem with doctors assisting suicides. He writes:

There is an unresolvable dilemma at the core physician-assisted suicide legalisation: it requires doctors to prescribe fatal medication and oversee the resulting deaths while they are not responsible for the recipient’s healthcare more generally – with no apparent requirement to follow best medical practice, exercise a duty of care, and work to prevent suicide.

Professor Allan House is an emeritus professor of liaison psychiatry and a supporter of Better Way.

The UK will debate assisted suicide bill this year.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

I am currently in the UK on a speaking tour speaking about Canada's experience with euthanasia (MAiD).

The Care Not Killing Alliance announced on October 3rd that Labour MP Kim Leadbeater said that she will introduce a Private Member’s Bill (she has the first private members bill spot) to instroduce an assisted suicide bill.

The Leadbeater bill has not been released yet. 

There have been several assisted suicide bills debated in the UK over the past few years. The last bill was debated in 2015 which was overwhelmingly defeated in the House of Commons. But sadly times are different after the election of Keir Starmer as Prime Minister.

Starmer, the leader of Britain's Labour Party, is a long-time promoter of assisted suicide. During the election Starmer promised that he would introduce a bill and allow a free-vote on assisted suicide. The July 4 election resulted in the Labour Party winning a massive majority with 411 out of 650 parliamentary seats.

After the election Starmer reiterated his support for assisted suicide and promised a free-vote within the year. BBC news reported:

Sir Keir Starmer has insisted he remains committed to giving MPs a free vote on assisted dying laws at some point.

The prime minister said he would provide parliamentary time for a vote if a backbench MPs proposed changing the law, but stressed the government had other "priorities for the first year or so".

In the House of Lords, Lord Falconer introduced his private members bill in the second spot. Falconer, who has sponsored previous assisted suicide bills, introduced the Assisted Dying for the Terminally Ill Adults bill on Friday July 26.

I reported on October 2 that Scotland's assisted suicide bill is likely to die a natural death. It is possible that Leadbeaters bill will attempt to legalize assisted suicide in all of the UK, including Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

Britain needs to fully examine Canada's experience with euthanasia and reject it. Hopefully the House of Lords will defeat the Falconer assisted suicide bill.

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition will keep you up-to-date on the British assisted suicide bills. We will continue to work with the Care Not Killing Alliance and other groups in the UK that oppose assisted suicide.

Scotland's assisted suicide bill will die a natural death.

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

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

On October 1, 2024 Scottish Health Secretary, Neil Gray said that Liam McArthur’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill was “outside the legislative competence.” Therefore, McArthur's assisted suicide bill will die because sections of the bill are outside of the jurisdiction of Scotland's legislature.

Simon Johnson reported for the Telegraph that:

In a memo to the Scottish Parliament’s health committee, he said the Bill’s proposal that ministers specify which drugs can be used to end people’s lives related to Westminster’s powers over “medicines, medical supplies and poisons”.

The document also warned that the legislation’s plan to shift the role of medics from “protecting/enhancing patients’ lives to assisting in termination of life” could change reserved UK regulation of health professionals.

The memo argued that “further processes” would have to be gone through to bring the Bill within Holyrood’s competence.

Keir Starmer, leader of Britain's Labour Party, has been a long-time promoter of assisted suicide. During the election Starmer promised that he would introduce a bill and allow a free-vote on legalizing assisted suicide in the UK. The July 4 election resulted in the Labour Party winning a massive majority with 411 out of 650 parliamentary seats.

After the election BBC news reported that Starmer reiterated his support for assisted suicide and promised a free-vote within the year.

It is likely that Scotland will not consider an assisted suicide bill until after London (Westminster) has debated the issue.

More information on this topic:

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

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.

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 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.

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

Scotland MSP opposes assisted suicide based on "legislative creep"

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Sue Webber MSP

Andrew Learmonth reported for The Herald (Scotland) on January 15 that Sue Webber, who is a senior Tory MSP has changed her position on assisted dying because she does not have confidence that the legislation will be properly scrutinised. Webber, in the past, supported assisted dying but she is now opposed. Learmonth reported.

Sue Webber told The Herald that while the parameters of Lib Dem Liam McArthur’s proposed Bill were narrow, she was anxious about “legislative creep” and parliamentarians passing a Bill that would see safeguards removed in the future.

Webber's concerns are not unfounded considering the Canada's experience where euthanasia was legalized in 2016 and expanded in 2021. Canada is now planning to implement euthanasia for people with mental illness. In the US most states that have legalized assisted suicide have now expanded the parameters of their legislation. "Legislative creep" as Webber calls it, is not a theory, but a reality with euthanasia.

Learmouth reported Ms Webber, who is the Convenor of Holyrood's Education, Children and Young People Committee, as saying:

“I was pro-assisted dying until I got in here. It's the reality of the fact that my vote actually makes a difference now. When I was out I could have an opinion, but there was actually no consequence to that opinion.“

“I'm in here now. And being in that role of legislating I don't think I would be able to feel comfortable knowing that one person has died because of a decision that I've taken.“

Learmouth further reported Webber as stating:

“But this Parliament right now hasn't got the best record of safeguarding in legislation,” she said. “So my confidence in us as a Parliament isn't there.”

The MSP added: “If you allow one group to ask to die, then what's to stop another group saying no, no, we need to let these group of patients people pass.

“And a wee amendment here, whatever it is, before you know, it's not the legislation that we passed.”

Learmouth reported Liam McArthur, the sponsor of the assisted dying bill as stating:

“No country that has introduced the type of narrow law proposed for Scotland has ever expanded its eligibility beyond terminally ill people."

I guess McArthur hasn't heard about Canada.

More articles on similar topics:

• Canada's euthanasia law. We've already gone too far (Link).
• Canada has revealed the horror of assisted dying (Link).
• The assisted suicide lobby passes restrictive assisted suicide bills and expands them later (Link).

Euthanasia: too easy for people to view death as a solution

Alex Schadenberg
Executive Director, Euthanasia Prevention Coalition

Baroness Finlay of Llandaff, a member of the UK House of Lords and a Professor in palliative care, warned Scotland's government that: 'online content is promoting a “culture of death”'. Llandaff warned Scotland's government that legalizing assisted death could “gradually get eroded”, leading to “almost death in demand”.

Sophie Villegas reported for Holyrood on November 29 Baroness Finlay commenting on Canada's experience with euthanasia:

“It becomes too easy for people to view death as a solution. It's been estimated that it's about 60 hours of clinical time to really process a request properly. Well, I would prefer that you spend 60 hours of clinical time improving people's quality of life… We need to be saying that people's lives are important. We need to help them live as well as possible for as long as possible,” she added.

“It would be wonderful if every doctor, every nurse, was well-motivated. But goodness me, we have seen disasters in this country of people abusing their position, to say the least, and almost clocking into a culture of death, which is dangerous."

Scotland is once again debating the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide. The text of legislation has not yet been released. Scotland's parliament last voted on the issue in 2022.

Canadian euthanasia stories influence international debate

The Care Not Killing Alliance UK shared the following message with their supporters as they fight to prevent the legalization of euthanasia in the UK.

This weekend, The Telegraph published an interview with Canadian veteran and Paralympian Christine Gauthier.

‘Ms Gauthier, who requires a wheelchair because of irreversible injuries from her time in the military, said after initially submitting her request for… disabled equipment in 2018, in 2022 a [Veterans Affairs Canada] employee “called me to make a point of where we’re at [with the lift]”.

‘She continued: “And I said, I just can’t keep going like this. I can’t keep living like this. Like, this has to be done. This has to be resolved.”

‘“And the person stated, ‘You know, Madame Gauthier, if you really feel you can’t go on like this, if you feel that you can’t do it anymore, you know, you have the right to die?’”’

Lawmakers, opinion-formers and the general public need to hear (and heed) such cautionary tales. 

The Care Not Killing Alliance message continued:

‘Increasingly, we are hearing appalling stories from Canada of those who are poor or disadvantaged being offered medical assistance in dying rather than proper health or social care. In the case of Roger Foley he was offered euthanasia whilst being told his care was costing over Canadian $1,500 a day.

‘Assisted suicide and euthanasia corrupt the healthcare system, putting pressure on people to end their lives so as not to be a burden on family, friends or care services. If Scotland were to have a Swiss-type assisted suicide system, hundreds of people a year would be dying prematurely owing to financial or other pressures or because of undiagnosed or untreated clinical depression.’

When Australian assisted suicide extremist Philip Nitschke announced that his 3D-printed suicide pods would be ready for use within a year, Gordon told the Daily Mail:

‘The development of personal gas chambers marks a new low in the debate about whether or not to kill people via assisted suicide and euthanasia.

‘What is equally risible is the claim that these will give people a quick pain free death, as this was exactly what was said about the use of death row drugs in the handful of places that have introduced assisted suicide or euthanasia.’

The Euthanasia Prevention Coalition fights the legalization of euthanasia and assisted suicide around the world. Care Not Killing Alliance UK is instrumental in preventing the legalization of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide in the UK.

Help us fight this battle. Become or renew your membership in the Euthanasia Prevention Coalition today. (EPC Membership Link).