Seòmar agus comataidhean

We touched earlier on the wider issues in schools and the impact of those. Daniel Johnson will be aware that some people have been a bit worried about the bill in relation to resources and the implications for schools. I note that the policy memorandum states that the member is alive to the issues. Based on what we have heard this morning, I do not doubt that. A number of people have said that a lack of resource could contribute to the unnecessary use of restraint and seclusion in schools in Scotland, particularly given the rising concerns about poor behaviour. What is the member’s response to that?

Thank you for answering the questions so far and for your passion and commitment to this issue. I know that many young people, parents and carers across the country take the issue seriously and will be grateful for the committee’s attention to it, which you have occasioned.

We have heard debate about the use of restraint and seclusion with disabled pupils, those with complex needs and care-experienced pupils. Is the bill equally applicable across all settings? Should there be additional protection for disabled pupils, pupils with complex needs and pupils who are care experienced?

That is much appreciated, thank you.

It is often said that, if we get it right for those children, we can lift others at the same time, which is the approach that the member is setting out. Throughout the committee’s evidence sessions, we have heard quite a lot from third sector organisations. Are you in a position to set out the sort of engagement that you have had with third sector organisations and where you see their role in the guidance and implementation of the bill?

Have they suggested any changes to the bill, or have they encouraged you to look at any different approaches during the next stage of the bill?

Does the member think that financial difficulty or the fact that someone is unable to get in and out of their own home—two examples of things that could make someone’s life intolerable when they have a terminal illness—are conditions for which it should be considered acceptable to seek assisted suicide?

Forgive me for asking, convener, but have we come to the end of the group on “Assessments of the terminally ill adult”?

If a similar amendment was brought back at stage 3 and it included the co-ordinating practitioner and the independent practitioner, would the member support it?

Given that amendments that define coercion have, so far, been rejected, does the member think that this proposed additional provision would be a further safeguard, so that people can recognise coercion?

Amendment 229 requires a medical practitioner to ask the patient for their primary reason for requesting assisted dying. If the reason is not related to the terminal illness or if it falls outside the scope of the act, the assessment must stop, ensuring that assistance is only considered for lawful appropriate motivations.

The bill sets out a defined pathway for assisted dying—who qualifies, under what circumstances and by what process—but it is silent on what happens when a person seeks assisted death for reasons that are outside that framework. We know from experience in other jurisdictions that people sometimes request assisted dying not because of their illness but because of their circumstances—they feel lonely, abandoned, impoverished or trapped in unsuitable housing. Under the bill as written, a person could begin the assisted dying process even if their motivation stems primarily from such factors. In other words, a cry for help could be mistaken for a considered request for death. That is a legal failure that we cannot afford to repeat.

When people suffer because of poverty, isolation or inadequate care, our response should be to fix those conditions, not to offer them an exit from life itself. Amendment 229 would ensure that such mistakes would not happen and that assisted dying remained within the narrow bounds that its proponents describe as an option for those truly at the end of life, not as a response to social or emotional suffering. I say that in the context of some amendments on proximity to death having, sadly, already been rejected.

The question, “Why do you want to die?” is not a bureaucratic formality but an act of clarity. It separates compassion from convenience and care from abandonment. Amendment 229 reminds us that the role of medicine and of the Parliament is not to end lives that have become difficult but to support lives that could remain vulnerable, even in difficulty.

Amendment 231 would make further provision on the inquiries that the medical practitioner must undertake. It would require medical practitioners to

“enquire about and discuss with the person being assessed what advice and support that person has received from the local authority within which they reside to enable that person to live independently in accordance with article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”

The amendment would act as a further safeguard against societal coercion.

Amendments 234 and 235 would make provision on referrals to disability organisations and to local authorities for assessments. Amendment 234 would specify that

“A registered medical practitioner carrying out an assessment under section 6 may refer the person being assessed to disability organisations for further advice about support for living with”

their medical condition.

Amendment 235 would specify that

“A registered medical practitioner carrying out an assessment under section 6 may refer the person being assessed to the local authority within which that person resides for further assessment of support to enable that person to live independently in accordance with article 19 of the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.”