If ‘state-assisted dying’ (assisted suicide or euthanasia) were to become legal in Scotland, how would you prevent it being extended to other categories of people or other medical conditions?,
A big deal is always made about ‘safeguards but even if the original ‘safeguards’ are well intentioned, the protection they provide is temporary and illusory. The way that ‘safeguards’ get expanded and extended is easy to predict because it has already happened abroad; from people who are terminally ill to include people who are not terminally ill; from people who are mentally competent to include people who are not mentally competent; from adults to include children.

If you’re considering the experience of other countries, there are three key questions every politicians has to consider. What were the ‘safeguards’ when the law was first introduced? Which of these ‘safeguards’ have now been dropped? What is being lobbied for or considered next? It’s when you ask those questions, you begin to realise that the only way to prevent assisted suicide and euthanasia from being incrementally extended to other categories of people or medical conditions is to not introduce it in the first place.

Another point to consider is if the ‘safeguards’ being proposed for Scotland are well intentioned? Or are they merely the lowest common denominator that the euthanasia lobby think they can get passed by a new generation of parliamentarians? There have been at least ten attempts to legislate on this issue in the British Isles in the last twenty years. All of them have been defeated because when politicians consider the issues in depth they come to the conclusion that it is simply not safe. It is not possible to design a system where there are adequate ‘safeguards’ to ensure that people who are vulnerable, people who are disabled or people who are elderly, will not feel under pressure, either from external sources or more likely internally, to end their lives prematurely.

The fact is that the various campaign groups lobbying to change the law all have different aims and agendas, often based on the autonomy of the individual. Yet the autonomy argument can be widely applied and it is difficult to draw arbitrary lines where the boundary of the law will be. One UK group is already arguing for euthanasia for patients with non-terminal disease, and if the principle behind legalising State-assisted suicide and euthanasia is the autonomy of the individual, why draw the line there? Once the law is changed, they can each resume lobbying again for their original goals and the evidence from other countries shows that the categories of eligible people can be rapidly expanded.

There is no safe way to legalise ‘state-assisted dying’ in Scotland. The slippery slope is real…and it is dangerous.

Fear of future pain and suffering are cited by many people as the main reasons why they might wish for euthanasia or assisted suicide. The evidence from other countries, however, demonstrates that the most common reasons why people request euthanasia and assisted suicide are NOT physical pain at all, but rather emotional and social reasons such as:

• Being ‘less able to engage in activities making life enjoyable’.
• Loss of autonomy.
• A perception of a loss of dignity.
• Fear of being a burden on family or care services.
• Fear of institutionalisation (e.g. not having a say in the dying process)
• Loneliness

For example, did you hear about the British Columbia woman, Shirley Turton (78), who became so depressed and lonely in a care home due to lockdown restrictions preventing family visits that she asked her daughter to arrange a death by euthanasia? If people are lonely, they need love, they need tenderness. They don’t need euthanasia.

Changing the law to legalise assisted suicide or euthanasia does not solve any of these problems. It makes things worse. Social care solutions that could well have worked are never sought. Medical research budgets are diverted elsewhere. Palliative care stays underfunded.

Surely if there is one thing we should learn from our response to the Covid pandemic it is that each and every person deserves the best possible care through the whole of their lives? Instead of offering death, the solution is to show solidarity with people who are vulnerable or disabled by supporting them to live and offering care and counselling. We need to improve how we care for people, not kill them.

Have you noticed that fear of future pain and suffering are often cited as the main reasons why people might wish for euthanasia or assisted suicide? Pro-death campaigners rely on this argument and emphasise it, presenting a false choice, either an unpleasant death or an assisted suicide. Given those hypothetical options in partisan polls, it’s hardly surprising that the euthanasia lobby can generate ‘favourable’ results. But when people are presented with the arguments against euthanasia, support for changing the law falls rapidly.

It is wrong that people have been presented with this binary choice. Are these the only two options for future generations of Scots? Are human beings not of infinitely more value and deserving of better treatment than a sick cat or dog?

There is another option. When patients are cared for properly, they seldom want to end their lives. Good quality palliative care is effective in relieving symptoms and helping people to live comfortable lives as death approaches whilst affirming their inherent dignity. As a country, we should support people to live, caring for them right up to the point of death.

Yet palliative medicine is chronically under-funded in the UK. Many hospices are charities, relying on donations from the public. Only 0.21% of non-commercial health-related research funding is spent on palliative care research (2018 figs), yet 80% of all people would benefit from some form of it when they die. Too many people are dying in Scotland (Marie Cure estimate it is 25%) without receiving the palliative care they need.

Palliative care is the right solution, and it needs to be properly resourced. I’m writing to ask you to support proper funding for palliative care and to oppose assisted suicide and euthanasia. We need to improve how we care for people, not kill them.

I’m writing to ask if you have considered the problems that will result from introducing a new systemic pressure into the health service by legalising assisted suicide.

Government planners will be all too aware that, should sick people be given a new “option-to-die” rather than to be cared for, enormous financial savings on NHS and social care budgets will be possible. Indeed, two Scottish academics, Dr David Shaw and Prof. Alex Morton, hit the headlines last year when a paper they had published highlighted the financial savings to be made from legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia.

As one palliative care consultant in New Zealand put it, “The availability of assisted dying could leave those eligible feeling they now have to justify… the expense of keeping them alive, and why they’re putting their family and caregivers through the burden of caring for them”.

A cynic might observe that this could be attractive to a certain kind of politician or NHS manager, but the obvious danger is that the economic pressure to cut costs will determine clinical priorities and inevitably place systemic pressure on doctors to help to end the lives of patients. Within the NHS, there have been many examples of a postcode lottery where tests, treatments and drugs can be restricted on account of location, age or cost. Given the pressure that NHS budgets are likely to face as our economy recovers from the Covid pandemic, do you think that systemic pressure can be avoided when the choice could be between £400 for a lethal cocktail or up to £90,000 for an extended period of palliative care?

In 2016, a Marie Curie report estimated that 1 in 4 people who die in Scotland and who would benefit from palliative care do not receive the care that they need. The real danger is that, by changing the law to legalise assisted suicide, the incentive to invest in palliative care will be reduced rather than increased. In Canada, promised extra funding for palliative care never materialised after their law was changed. Rather ‘future cost savings’ of around Can$149m in health expenditure are estimated according to a Canadian parliamentary report.

I believe the only way to prevent that systemic pressure from contributing towards making it all too easy for doctors to end patients’ lives in ever increasing numbers, is to reject any proposal to change the law. Will you please give this matter your urgent consideration?

Thank you.

I writing to ask you about your position on Assisted suicide and to also ask you to support proper funding for palliative care. As one of your constituents, it is important to me to know if you are open to hearing all the evidence from other countries of the harmful effects of legalising assisted suicide because I believe vulnerable people must be protected from feeling pressure to take their own lives.

Elderly people and disabled people can feel a burden on their family, friends and caregivers. Patients with frailty, terminal illness or cognitive impairment may have a low view of their own value and importance to others. These are the people who will be put at risk by changing the law to legalise state-assisted suicide. These are the people for whom the right to die can feel like a duty to die.

The Oregon Health Authority annual report from 2019 shows that 59% of people opting for assisted suicide mentioned the fear of being a burden on family, friends, or caregivers as a factor in their decision. This increased from only 13% in 1998 when it was first legalised. This increase demonstrates one of the subtle and dangerous factors that inevitably leads to a rise in the number of assisted suicide deaths year on year.

Some campaigners for a change in the law accept the perception of being a ‘burden’ as a valid reason why some people might choose to opt for assisted suicide or euthanasia. Yet clinical evidence suggests that patients with chronic and terminal illnesses, despite being vulnerable to depression and suicidal ideation, through care and support, can be helped to value the time that they may have left. A compassionate Scotland is one which cares for its oldest, sickest and its most defenceless citizens. It should not be putting them in a position of feeling that they’re a burden on the rest of society and they should end their lives. We need to improve how we care for people, not kill them.

I’m writing to ask if you would please take two minutes to watch this short video about a big issue in this election. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oxlBCl75gHo

The Covid-19 pandemic has shown us all that every human being is of equal value and should receive the best possible care when facing illness, old age or disability. Yet campaigners for ‘State-assisted dying’ are using the pandemic to call for a change in the law to allow assisted suicide in Scotland, citing examples from other countries where it has been legalised.

We all want to help people who experience pain and distress at the end of life, but politicians can make decisions which have disastrous consequences for future generations. As one of your constituents, I believe it’s vital for politicians to consider the future impacts that a change of this magnitude could have on Scotland. Some of the consequences and dangerous trends are entirely foreseeable, because they’re already happening in other countries.