WITH the exception of abortion, it is hard to think of a more emotive and contentious area of public debate and medical ethics than assisted dying.
The rest of life demands of us few more agonising choices than those surrounding birth and death.
In late 2010 Margo MacDonald's End of Life Assistance Bill was rejected by 85 votes to 16 at Holyrood. Yet yesterday the Independent MSP was back in the chamber with a new bid to legalise assisted suicide. Her return to this issue, so soon after her first bill was so decisively rejected, testifies to her impressive campaigning zeal on this issue, a zeal intensified by her own Parkinson's diagnosis. It is also a reflection of the way the ground is shifting in this debate. With new members making up one-third of the Scottish Parliament and opinion polls suggesting growing support for the right to be helped to die, it would be a mistake to write off her chances of success this time around.
Even staunch opponents of change must concede that there is a fundamental unfairness when a terminally ill person is so physically incapacitated that he or she is no longer able to take the route of suicide that is open to others. And, while respecting the views of those who believe that only God can decide such matters, it seems unreasonable that those who profess no religious faith should be forced to abide by the same rules.
The recent Commission on Assisted Dying, though not a neutral body, put a powerful case for patients being allowed to kill themselves under strict guidelines. Though the law has been clarified in England, a relative who helps a loved-one to die in Scotland still risks being charged with culpable homicide. Ms MacDonald contends that her new bill addresses some of the shortcomings of its predecessor.
Personal experience tends to colour one's view. That can apply both to watching someone die in agony because of the limitations of palliative care or witnessing callous relatives leaving an elderly person feeling that they are a burden and "best out of it". The fact remains that most doctors continue to oppose assisted dying and are concerned that safeguards offer insufficient protection to the vulnerable. The prospect of such cases falling into the hands of a small group of doctors is worrying. Others fear that it could divert attention from the need to improve palliative care. Could tightening the law make it more difficult for doctors and relatives to come to compassionate and common sense decisions about patients who are near death and in intolerable pain, as they do now with very little likelihood of prosecution? There are no easy answers in this debate but that is no reason to avoid it.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article