Posterous theme by Cory Watilo

Margo's Bill Fails

Once again, our MSPs have shown just how out of touch with the public they are. By a considerable margin they have voted against the End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill which would have allowed individuals, in certain circumstances, to seek assistance to end their own life if they are unable to do so themselves. In recent polls over 80% asked (sample size over 1000) supported this idea. Just 16 of our MSPs agreed (13% of MSPs). So why have our Parliamentarians opted to reject the bill brought forward by Margo MacDonald despite support for it. The debate in the parliament chamber yesterday does reveal some interesting points of view both within society and how that seems to influence our MSPs. The organisation Care Not Killing or CNK as they style themselves (sounds like a perfume brand) seems to have adopted some overly aggressive tactics in seeking to influence opinion. Despite being an organisation that is fully aware how legislation is formed and guidance issue decided to scare people into thinking that any assistance might involved being gassed!  In direct contradiction of the stated text of the Bill they also claimed that the Bill ‘put large numbers of sick or disabled Scottish people at risk’.  They didn’t say what risk or why as that would have revealed the lie at the heart of that statement and thus negate their scare tactic campaign. Another shocking statement from CNK was that supporting a person’s decision to end their own life ‘will come to be seen as an easy, low-cost alternative to good care’. Sometimes I wish there was a common decency standard for campaigning and lobbying in Scotland. Perhaps something simple, like a single line stating ‘we will tell the truth’? This would expose their lie that all doctors and nurses oppose assisted suicide – seemingly ignoring the group Healthcare Professionals for Change which includes doctors and nurses who support assisted suicide for those who are terminally ill. Angela Constance MSP made reference this type of lobbying. Disappointingly this departure from truth into scaremongering and lies has spread into the charity sector in Scotland (CNK are not a charity). Inclusion Scotland led a protest to the Scottish Parliament with the message that the Bill will encourage disabled people to kill themselves. Amazingly they linked the cuts to public services to assisted suicide by stating that the Bill will make dying an “attractive, quick and easy option”. In whose world is suicide an attractive option? It is a last resort where life has become either intolerable or will soon become so. They key point is that those two points are for an individual to decide not external do-gooders who want to foist their own beliefs on other people. Inclusion Scotland also states that “We believe the bill discriminates against disabled people because technically everyone eligible for assistance to die in the bill is disabled”. This, if nothing else, shows that they haven’t actually read the Bill or understood the reasons behind it. Currently a person who is facing a period of their life where they will be in tremendous pain, massively reduced personal independence and even total immobility may not want to live in that way. I know I wouldn’t. So my choices would be to either end my own life even if I had plenty of time left were I would be happy to continue living but would be unable to end my own live or live a life I don’t want to live. Some choice! This, despite the fear mongering by Inclusion Scotland, is not about being in a wheelchair after a car crash and finding it disappointing and hard to do things I used to do. It is about a fundamental, permanent and soul destroying change in who I am. Yet Inclusion Scotland would want me to live on for some reason. Every day I would be going insane inside my head yet they would fight for me to keep living. Thanks. In the end, this aspect of the Bill was removed anyway allowing only the terminally ill to seek assistance to commit suicide. But even that was rejected by our MSPs. So I am not allowed to have individual autonomy. Why is this? It was brought up by Lib Dem Ross Finnie, chair of The End of Life Assistance (Scotland) Bill Committee, who highlighted the fact that an individual’s desire should be tempered by the interests of wider society. So because some people don’t want other people, who they don’t know and are in no position to comment on in anyway, to end their life in a way that they choose. Yet he also says ‘Most members of the committee believe that the wider societal concerns should prevail in the context of the bill’ which flies in the face of what the public are telling pollsters. The debate in the Scottish Parliament also shows a difference of opinion with older people who are in favour of the terminally ill to end their lives if they so wish. Perhaps older people have more experience with the real, untreatable, soul destroying pain that terminal illnesses can bring but medical science and (definitely not) faith, cannot alleviate. Older people are also not as pliable to the pressure to the alleged pressure that patronising MSPs such as Nicola Sturgeon and Mary Scanlon believe they are. There are, thankfully, very few murders of older people by their children in this country where the objective was to gain access to assets. Yet, according to many MSPs, suddenly the children of Scotland’s infirm older people will rise up and demand that they commit suicide! Where is this evidenced except in the feverish minds (Mike Rumbles MSP) of those opposed to the Bill? Evidence (or alleged lack thereof) was also a key consideration behind many of the more thoughtful contributions during the debate but it was telling that even these contributions resulted in a vote against the Bill despite its very early stage in the parliamentary stage. There is not one criticism of the Bill from a technical aspect could not be addressed at Stage 2. All of the Parliamentarians who spoke against the Bill, citing lack of evidence or other detail, know this. If they don’t like the idea of assisted suicide and want people to live beyond their desire to do so then they should at least be brave enough to say so. Like Roseanna Cunningham MSP who “would not under any circumstances wish to be treated by any medical practitioner who was prepared to help someone to kill themselves, however supposedly pure their motives”. That, if nothing else, is an insult to the professional ethics of those involved with Healthcare Professionals for Change. I wish that those who voted against the Bill at Stage 1 were at least as honest as Roseanna Cunningham. This is because it would then be easy to understand why they voted no. Anyone who listened to (and understood) the contribution from Patrick Harvie MSP will understand why I think this. He stated
The risk that someone could come under pressure to end their life prematurely when that is not their preference is very serious and we should not take it lightly, but nor should we take lightly the serious risk, and the reality, that people are under pressure to make the other choice when they would wish to take the option of assisted suicide. Some people will no doubt continue to travel overseas to make the choice. My final comment is that the absence of any vociferous call for those people to be chased down and prosecuted for travelling overseas for an illegal purpose suggests to me that we do not consider those people to be criminals. We do not consider them to be people who pose a threat to others or wider society. If we did, as for travel overseas for other illegal purposes, we would prosecute them. We do not, so let us stop treating them as criminals. Let us recognise that this is a debate and vote on the general principles of the bill. If we want to debate the detail and whether the safeguards should be amended, we should support the general principles at decision time tonight. I certainly will.
This, the best contribution to the debate, shows how to debate honestly and correctly within the Scottish Parliament. He has concerns about the Bill but understand they can be addressed. He also respects the rights of an individual, with appropriate safeguards, to die when they wish. I hope Margo is re-elected next year and promptly reintroduces her Bill in a way and manner that means MSPs will either have to reveal their inner Cunningham or follow in Patrick Havie's footsteps.