A contentious assisted dying bill being considered by Holyrood is facing mounting opposition as MSPs voice significant concerns about patient safety, human rights compliance, and supposed safeguards.
Now at Stage 2 of its parliamentary journey, the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill is undergoing amendment scrutiny by Holyrood’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee. The Scottish proposals are distinct from the laws presently into consideration within the House of Lords at Westminster.
Members of the Scottish Parliament have urged the health committee to hunt clarity from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). They want to find out whether the proposed law upholds international human rights standards or risks undermining protections for vulnerable people.
Their request follows energetic investigations by the CRPD into similar laws in France and sharp criticism of Canada’s medical assistance in dying (MAID) framework, which the UN says endangers disabled people without sufficient safeguards.
Central to the unease is the broad definition of “terminal illness” within the Bill recommend by Lib Dem MSP Liam McArthur.
In contrast to parallel proposals being examined at Westminster, the Scottish bill doesn’t require a prognosis or any estimate of remaining lifespan — an omission that critics argue could widen eligibility far beyond those near the tip of life.
An amendment that will have required an individual to be inside six months of death before accessing an assisted death has already been denied by the committee.
Another point of contention involves staffing. Under the present draft, only a single nurse is remitted to oversee the administration of the lethal medication. The Royal College of Nursing has called for a two-nurse requirement to safeguard professionals and patients alike. While McArthur opposed the change, the committee sided with the nursing body.
Some MSPs have raised concerns after reports from the US showing that, from time to time, individuals prescribed lethal medication were left in distress for prolonged periods. For example, in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, some deaths reportedly took greater than five days from the purpose of taking the lethal dose of medicine.
Professional bodies have warned that such cases illustrate the necessity for stronger oversight and clearer accountability mechanisms in Scotland’s proposal.
MSP Brian Whittle emphasised the gravity of the laws, noting that MSPs must take expert medical opinion seriously: “This just isn’t like all other bill. It’s not like anything we’ve been asked to do before.”
CEO of Care Not Killing Dr Gordon Macdonald accused Holyrood of brushing aside “reasonable proposals” that will introduce tighter protections.
“Assisted suicide is inherently dangerous, but there is no such thing as a need for Scotland to have essentially the most permissive and unsafe laws on this planet,” he said.
“At present, Liam McArthur’s bill poses a really real threat to those that are disabled, depressed or have life-shortening conditions but years and even many years of life to live.”
Dr Macdonald welcomed the choice to seek the advice of the UN but criticised McArthur and a number of other MSPs for resisting even that step.
He also questioned the pace at which the bill is progressing through Holyrood. Westminster’s equivalent laws underwent greater than three months of detailed examination, including over 60 hours of committee work – excess of the ten hours logged at Holyrood to this point.
“We are talking a few law that can put vulnerable people at real risk,” Dr Macdonald warned.
“When the stakes are life and death, thorough scrutiny isn’t optional, it’s essential.
“Rushing scrutiny of this bill to fulfill a political timetable just isn’t just bad practice, it’s dangerous.”
During the committee’s deliberations, MSPs drew attention to various unresolved issues inside the proposed laws.
Members rejected an amendment from MSP Sue Webber that will have required applicants to learn about possible negative effects of the medication, including choking, vomiting, and respiratory distress.
Another proposal, recommend by MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy, sought to oblige clinicians to analyze a patient’s reasons for requesting an assisted death and to dismiss applications not rooted in terminal illness. This too was voted down.
Additionally, MSP Daniel Johnson raised concerns that the bill doesn’t clearly state whether the person must perform “the ultimate act” themselves — a crucial ethical safeguard.
Recent developments outside Holyrood mirror these concerns. In May, the Church of Scotland maintained its opposition to assisted suicide, and public polling results published in September show Scots remain cautious, with senior figures — including the First Minister, John Swinney — warning of risks to disabled people’s rights.
The bill has attracted nearly 300 amendments, and there stays deep unease amongst campaigners, faith groups and legal experts, who argue its broad definitions and limited safeguards could expose vulnerable people to pressure.
 A contentious assisted dying bill being considered by Holyrood is facing mounting opposition as MSPs voice significant concerns about patient safety, human rights...){kind=link}