Seòmar agus comataidhean

The first theme is the definition of terminal illness. A range of views have been expressed about the eligibility criteria used in the bill around the definition. Will you give us your views on that? In particular, do you think that conditions such as motor neurone disease, Alzheimer’s and cerebral palsy should or would be covered by that definition?

Marianne, do you have a view?

Given what you have said throughout today’s evidence session, I absolutely understand.

If the bill became law, would your organisation find it helpful if assisted dying was not discussed at all, or should people have the right to have that option placed in front of them when they discussed their options?

My question relates to the situation if the bill became law, so I will try to make it brief. Lyn Pornaro talked about assisted dying as a treatment option. I suppose that my question can be quite straightforward.

Under the Montgomery ruling, people should, rightly, have all the options put to them. In this case, as disabled people’s organisations, would it help with the issue of pressure, in the way that you have described it, if that was not the case—that is, if assisted dying was not seen as a reasonable treatment option, and so was not discussed at that stage? Alternatively, do you feel, as you expressed before, that that might mean that people did not have all the options placed in front of them? If the bill was enacted and became law, how would you feel about that?

Do you think that it would be helpful to have an expected timeframe for people in relation to their terminal illness diagnosis?

Yes, of course.

To ask the Scottish Government what action it is taking to prevent the spread of avian influenza, following the outbreak in Kirriemuir. (S6T-02277)

My final question is on links. Avian influenza has devastated wild bird populations across the country. We know that transmission from birds to humans is rare and that the risk to human health is low, but several people around the world have been infected. Can the Scottish Government advise people on what biosecurity steps people and organisations can take to reduce the spread of avian influenza in Scotland?

I thank the minister for that clarity and his response. This is the second outbreak in the area in recent years. We have been told that avian flu has been detected in two wild birds in Fife and Perth. Farmers across Scotland, particularly in my region of South Scotland, want reassurance that sufficient safeguards are in place to prevent future outbreaks, and that high winds and flooding are not weakening those safeguards. Can the minister provide some reassurance on that point?

I thank Foysol Choudhury for bringing the debate to the chamber. I was really interested to see it on the agenda and to hear from members tonight.

We have spoken previously in the chamber about diabetes and diabetes care, so I know that there is enthusiasm among members for advancing the issue, and I know that some members bring expertise to the debate. I hope that Emma Harper knows that I have great respect for the work that she has done on the cross-party group and the way in which she tells her stories.

From a previous role, I, too, have some experience of working with people who have diabetes. I spent many years working as a dietician in the NHS and, in my early career, I covered diabetic clinics along with a specialist diabetic nurse and other members of a multidisciplinary team. Diabetes is a condition that patients manage and live with, and I learned much about the adaptability, resilience and humour of people following the diagnosis of such a life-changing condition.

The work also gave me a lifelong admiration for the dedication of NHS staff in building up relationships with patients who have enormous hurdles to overcome in their many years of treatment. I would like to give a big shout out to all those staff, including those who work in the background in research and medicine development and, as we are discussing tonight, medical technology.

In a previous debate, we spoke about insulin and its relationship to diabetes and we all agreed that it is one of the greatest medical breakthroughs in history. It changed the lives of many millions of people by ensuring that the diagnosis of type 1 diabetes was no longer a death sentence and by enabling them to have a life worth living. I still think about our responsibility to make life all that it can be for people and how, as medical technology advances, we must make sure that it works for those who need it most.

As we have heard from members, and in the words of the motion, the Parliament recognises

“the vital importance of medical technology”.

Tonight, we are focusing on real-time continuous glucose monitoring and how it can transform the lives of those who use insulin and help them to manage their condition.

Other members have mentioned the research that is being done at Stanford University, and we understand that people who have diabetes make about 180 more decisions each day about their care and health than those without it. Access to diabetes technology can and will help to reduce that burden. If we want people to live full lives, we have a responsibility to use the technology. Foysol Choudhury explained that eloquently when he shared Jane’s story.

Managing lifelong conditions can take its toll on individuals and their families, so it is important that, as parliamentarians, we acknowledge our role in fighting for services and for having every possible advantage made available to people as quickly as possible, so that they get maximum benefit—and, of course, for those services being made accessible to all.

There are many elements that we could bring to tonight’s debate, including diabetes diagnosis, treatment and life with diabetes in general, but this short debate gives us the chance to raise only one or two issues. In the time that I have left, I want to talk a little bit about tackling the inequalities around diabetes care, particularly the link between inequality and diabetes outcomes.

From years of research on the realities of living with diabetes, particularly for those who come from a more deprived background, we know that those who live in the most deprived homes are up to twice as likely to develop complications from diabetes as those who live in the least deprived homes. The stark figures show that, for many, the reality is that where they were born unfairly lays out their future, particularly when it comes to health and health outcomes.

Technology can play its part in tackling health inequalities. So, as we fight for those technologies to become part of mainstream care, I want us all to reflect on the availability of and access to medical care, treatment and technology. Let us ensure that technology in diabetes care is at the forefront of reducing health inequalities and that it helps to improve the lives of many of our constituents.