The row over the attempt to bring euthanasia to Scotland rumbles on. Veteran pro-life organisation The Christian Institute has told the Scottish Parliament’s Health Committee that any change to the law on assisted suicide would be “hugely damaging” to society.
In its response to the Committee’s call for evidence on Liam McArthur MSP’s Assisted Dying Bill, the Institute said the legislation would devalue the lives of vulnerable people, risked such people being coerced into ending their lives, and would also fundamentally change the relationship between doctors and their patients.
The Bill would allow those aged 16 or over deemed to be ‘terminally ill’ and who have been resident in Scotland for at least twelve months to get help to kill themselves.
‘Terminally ill’ is defined in the legislation as someone who has “an advanced and progressive disease, illness or condition from which they are unable to recover and that can reasonably be expected to cause their premature death”, but the Institute said this was “very broad”.
The Bill’s definition could include heart disease and progressive neurological conditions, but the Institute also pointed out that in Oregon, assisted suicides have been approved for conditions such as anorexia, hernias, and arthritis, while in Belgium and the Netherlands, patients with eating disorders were considered eligible for euthanasia as their conditions were deemed ‘hopeless’ or ‘untreatable’.
It noted that in other jurisdictions, eligibility requirements have also been quickly watered down, such as in Canada, where just five years after legalising euthanasia, legislators scrapped the requirement for a person to be terminally ill.
Leftist Liam McArthur’s Bill sets out other so-called safeguards, which include a “test of non-coercion” and a “period of reflection”.
However, the Institute warned it will be impossible to guarantee the absence of coercion once assisted suicide becomes an option, and that many vulnerable people may choose it out of fear of being a burden on others. It also said the 14-day reflection period is “far too short, given the irreversible nature of the decision”.