Seòmar agus comataidhean

My question might relate more to the next theme, but I am interested in hearing your thoughts on the bill’s proposed age limit of 16, given that, in other legislation, the age limit is 18. That is clearly different.

Good morning, minister. I am interested in the science of food additives and have been following the work of Professor Tim Spector, Chris van Tulleken and Carlos Monteiro in São Paulo in Brazil on the chemicals that are added to ultraprocessed foods.

I agree with the minister that the public trust Food Standards Scotland and the Food Standards Agency because of their work, which includes work on food crime. Yesterday, I met the head of food crime at Food Standards Scotland, and it was pretty eye watering to hear about all the work that is being done on that.

The Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition looks at the evidence on new products that will potentially come on to the market, which will take up its time. Do you have enough assurance that that committee will keep you informed about all the products that are coming on to the market, especially as new evidence emerges, based on the work of Tim Spector and Chris van Tulleken?

It has been interesting to hear everybody so far this morning. I remind everyone that I am still a registered nurse.

I am interested in some of the issues that have come up at committee about the process or model, including the ability of doctors to assess capacity and coercion without specialist input or training; the involvement of GPs, given the pressure on GP services; the level and experience of doctors; how the bill will prevent doctor shopping; and other issues to do with conscientious objection. I have a longer list, but I will save the time. Do the witnesses have any opinions about the process or service model as described in the bill? Do they include sufficient safeguards? Do they offer the prospect of a high-quality service?

Not all COPD is terminal, and not all diabetes is terminal.

Dr Wright, I want to pick up on what you said about GPs working behind closed doors. I am a registered nurse and, in my experience, if somebody is given a terminal diagnosis, a multidisciplinary team of specialists will be working with them. That will include haematologists, surgeons, nurse practitioners and physiotherapists—a whole range of specialists will come into contact with the patient. If a patient makes a statement, therefore, in which they say, “I want to end this,” it is not then just going be up to a GP to make a decision behind closed doors.

Quite often, in my experience, if a physician comes to speak to a patient and there is a family member at the bedside, the patient will be asked whether it is okay for the family member to stay or whether they should leave, and it is up to the patient to make that decision. It is about choice and more than one person is making a decision, so I am not sure that I agree that GPs would be working behind closed doors and making a decision in a vacuum with regard to what somebody’s autonomous choice might be. I am thinking about the wider multidisciplinary team and about the decision being part of a care process.

Thanks. I do not want to take over anybody else’s questions, so I will leave it there.

Last week it came up that somebody might have a terminal illness but also have what might be considered to be a mental ill-health issue; the bill talks about the person having a “mental disorder”. However, somebody can have depression then get a terminal illness, too. That is the sort of thing that, down the line, should be addressed in further guidance—the bill supports the development of guidance—so that the assessment of adequate “capacity” can take into account that some people will have co-existing conditions.

I will pick up on Joe FitzPatrick’s point about the impact of the new US President on products that will be marketed in or brought to this country. The US Food and Drug Administration has the “Food Defect Levels Handbook”, which sets out acceptable levels of defects in food. That allows certain levels of insect parts, mould, mites, dust and even—dare I say it?—rat poo.

We do not have anything like that in Europe or in the UK. I am assuming that the Food Standards Agency and Food Standards Scotland will be horizon scanning for products that might be brought to the market from the USA for instance. I have concerns about the acceptable level of defects in the products that are coming from America.

I am a type 1 diabetic, and I do not consider myself terminal.

You mentioned feed. Food Standards Scotland looks not only at products that are for human consumption but at products for animals. We know that some products are added to the food of ruminants for emissions reduction. One of those products was mentioned in the chamber last week, because there seems to be a perception—perhaps because of fake news on the internet—that some products are not safe. However, they are rigorously tested before the products are even added to feed for our dairy cows, beef cattle or sheep.

I seek reassurance that my understanding is correct—that the products are rigorously tested and safe and that, therefore, people should not believe what they read on the internet.