Policy Research Media Morhamburn

Currently commencing its journey through the Scottish Parliament is the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill which will undoubtedly prove to be one of the most debated and divisive topics that our MSPs will consider. Stage 1 of the Bill is to be completed by the end of November 2010, with the Chamber debate likely to follow in December. Last night the Cross Party Group on Palliative Care met to debate the (de)merits of the Bill.

The CPG secretariat had arranged to have speakers presenting both sides of the debate – Dr John Paley of Stirling University arguing in favour of the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill and Dr Steven Hutchison of the Highland Hospice, Inverness, presenting the opposing view. The purpose of the speakers’ presentations was to facilitate debate among CPG attendees. Rather unsurprisingly, however, out of the 45 or so people present the majority appeared opposed to the Bill.

I have stated in a previous blog that I am in favour of this Bill. I think that it comes down to personal choice which people should have the freedom to exercise. I suspect that there have been cases of assisted suicide in Scotland, should we not therefore allow the Government to regulate such occurrences and make it safer for all involved? 

Despite this, I agree with some of the opposing arguments made last night. I agree that at the age of 16 you probably are too young to make such an important decision.  At 16 we are not deemed responsible enough to vote, drive a car, or drink alcohol, so an argument for increasing the age in which you can choose to end your own life makes sense. I also agree that there should be some clause that allows a doctor to opt out of administering end of life assistance.  No doctor should be put in the position of having to purposely end the life of a patient.  Incidentally, the worst argument in opposition of the Bill was that the majority of people do not want it. The gentleman who made the argument is probably correct. However, the majority of us are also not suffering from a terminal illness or unable to live without round-the-clock care.

What struck me most about the majority of arguments against the Bill last night were that they all seemed to centre on details: all language problems, any slight ambiguities contained in the Bill’s finer points can be worked upon and improved for the safety of those who would take advantage of the Bill. Doctors should have an involvement in this as should patients too. In Scotland we are lucky enough to have a very open Parliament which allows us to voice our opinions on all areas in which our Government has responsibility and we should get involved when an issue affects us.

 It was argued that the 20 or so MSPs who supported the Bill only did so to ensure a debate on end of life assistance. Yet where is the value in having a debate when so many have made up their mind before it has even begun?

[The views expressed by Morhamburn people in their blogs are theirs and theirs alone. they do not represent the thoughts of the company as a whole or our clients. If you have a comment to make on any blog, please email info@morhamburn.com and we’ll put the printable ones up on the website]