It was certainly one of the most emotional debates I have ever taken part in and MSPs on all sides knew the vote on the first stage of the Assisted Dying Bill was going to be one of the hardest decisions they would be asked to make.
There were no party whips to guide us, just our own consciences, and as I have written here before, I was one of those whose views changed the more I thought about it, and the more I heard the arguments on both sides.
There has been no shortage of members of the public, health professionals and charities making those arguments, and I’m sure all MSPs will also report that their inboxes have never been so full of emails about one subject, easily running into four figures.
It was, therefore, a privilege to participate in such a vital debate, with many moving testimonies for and against ─ the SNP’s Marie McNair, a former palliative care nurse, was particularly powerful ─ but at times it also felt as if death was being depersonalised and commoditised, which I found upsetting.
In such a charged atmosphere I was honoured to be asked to close on behalf of those opposed to the bill, and I was shaking like a leaf when I sat down.
Unusually for a Tuesday afternoon, the Holyrood chamber was packed and the outcome uncertain until the vote was announced, 56 against and 70 for, with the Health Secretary Neil Gray abstaining. This is not a subject for political pot shots, but I’d have thought anyone with doubts so strong they couldn’t support the bill would have voted to preserve the status quo.
But there is a long way to go and more scrutiny at the committee stage and in the final third reading, both opportunities to amend the legislation which may persuade members to switch sides. In which direction it’s impossible to say.
We know at least nine MSPs voted in favour but with reservations, and if those concerns are not properly addressed it is still very possible the bill will fail.
What is clear is that the membership of the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee (HSCSC), which will conduct the line-by-line examination of the legislation, will need to change because of its nine members only the convener, the SNP’s Clare Haughey, voted against.
I’m sure the committee will hear many more tragic stories, but heart-breaking personal stories should not be the only consideration in a decision with such vast implications and when we must legislate for everyone.
There is no question that in bringing the bill forward, Orkney MSP Liam McArthur’s intentions are honourable, but the risks it introduces are real.
The loose definition could easily be challenged in the courts to widen eligibility which, in fairness, is something the HSCSC has already warned about.
That’s what happened in Canada where one death in 20 is assisted, with some people in their 20s suffering non-terminal mental health problems. That’s not assisted dying but euthanasia.
While trying to solve suffering, this bill could ultimately multiply it. Instead, let’s strengthen our duty to care.
