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 legislation presently under consideration in the House of Lords at Westminster.
Members of the Scottish Parliament have urged the health committee to seek clarity from the United Nations Committee on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD). They want to determine whether the proposed law upholds international human rights standards or risks undermining protections for vulnerable people.
Their request follows active investigations by the CRPD into similar legislation 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” in the Bill put forward by Lib Dem MSP Liam McArthur.
In contrast to parallel proposals being examined at Westminster, the Scottish bill does not require a prognosis or any estimate of remaining lifespan — an omission that critics argue could widen eligibility far beyond those near the end of life.
An amendment that would have required a person to be within six months of death before accessing an assisted death has already been denied by the committee.
Another point of contention involves staffing. Under the current draft, just a single nurse is mandated 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, on occasion, individuals prescribed lethal medication were left in distress for extended periods. For example, in Oregon, where assisted suicide is legal, some deaths reportedly took more than five days from the point of taking the lethal dose of drugs.
Professional bodies have warned that such cases illustrate the need for stronger oversight and clearer accountability mechanisms in Scotland’s proposal.
MSP Brian Whittle emphasised the gravity of the legislation, noting that MSPs must take expert medical opinion seriously: “This is not like any other bill. It’s not like anything we have been asked to do before.”
CEO of Care Not Killing Dr Gordon Macdonald accused Holyrood of brushing aside “reasonable proposals” that would introduce tighter protections.
“Assisted suicide is inherently dangerous, but there is no need for Scotland to have the most permissive and unsafe legislation in the world,” he said.
“At present, Liam McArthur’s bill poses a very real threat to those who are disabled, depressed or have life-shortening conditions but years or even decades of life to live.”
Dr Macdonald welcomed the decision to consult the UN but criticised McArthur and several MSPs for resisting even that step.
He also questioned the pace at which the bill is progressing through Holyrood. Westminster’s equivalent legislation underwent more than three months of detailed examination, including over 60 hours of committee work - far more than the 10 hours logged at Holyrood so far.
“We are talking about a law that will 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 meet a political timetable is not just bad practice, it’s dangerous.”
During the committee’s deliberations, MSPs drew attention to a number of unresolved issues within the proposed legislation.
Members rejected an amendment from MSP Sue Webber that would have required applicants to be informed about possible side effects of the medication, including choking, vomiting, and respiratory distress.
Another proposal, put forward by MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy, sought to oblige clinicians to investigate 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 does not clearly state whether the individual must carry out “the final act” themselves — an important 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 remains deep unease among campaigners, faith groups and legal experts, who argue its broad definitions and limited safeguards could expose vulnerable people to pressure.
