Seòmar agus comataidhean

Again, MND Scotland was particularly strong on that point. Self-administration is integral to the proposals that I have made. On that same panel, I think that there was an acceptance that there are other means whereby that self-administration can take place, whether by signalling through eye movement or other mechanisms.

It is important to ensure that there is the capacity and intent, but the development of medical technologies is now allowing self-administration to happen in a way that would have been very difficult to conceive of a number of years ago. It is important that the self-administration criteria remain and I am confident that that can be achieved while not excluding those who meet the eligibility criteria in terms of advanced progressive terminal illness and mental capacity.

There is always value in having further conversations, but I think that the bill as it stands provides those protections.

The committee also heard from the Crown Office last week about the expectation that deaths that occur through the assisted dying process would be subject to oversight by the Lord Advocate. I know that the Crown Office was slightly uncomfortable in anticipating the Lord Advocate’s view in that regard, but I think that that would be a reasonable expectation and, again, it would provide a degree of reassurance.

I do not know whether any other colleagues want to come in on that.

I see what you mean—almost the other way round. I suppose that the safeguard is that two medics need to be satisfied that the patient meets the eligibility criteria—that they have an advanced progressive terminal illness and that they have the capacity to make the decision. We have covered the other safeguards. If the patient does not meet those criteria to the satisfaction of both medics, the option to go to another medical practitioner remains open to them, as we discussed earlier. However, it is difficult to see how the patient would satisfy them and a second medical practitioner that they meet the criteria. There is the option for an individual to seek a diagnosis, but medical professionals will make these assessments. If the patient does not meet the criteria, it is important for the patient, the medics and public confidence that the law, as it stands, remains extant. We cannot have situations in which people are being assisted to die in ways other than those that are set out in the bill. The criminal law continues to apply, as we heard from the Crown Office and Police Scotland last week.

It was an extensive session, but, as the Health, Social Care and Sport Committee is finding, I appear to be party to extensive evidence sessions on this topic.

To some extent, the issue emerged from the modelling that was used to predict the numbers. As I acknowledged to the Finance and Public Administration Committee, we could make an argument that, if rising numbers of people take up the option of assisted death, the associated costs will be higher, but, equally, drawing on the international evidence, we could make an argument that the costs will be lower.

With regard to the training costs, the numbers of people that are likely to be involved in training as a result of take-up are expected to be relatively small because a lot of that training is already taking place. As I said in response to Ms Whitham earlier, assessments of coercion and capacity are already being made. I absolutely acknowledge that there will perhaps be a requirement to update the training that is provided, but we are not talking about something that is wholly new to the medical profession.

To some extent, I am at a slight disadvantage with regard to the Scottish Government’s assessment of the costs. I have set out a financial memorandum that shows my working, but I am not clear about how the Scottish Government has developed its figures.

To go back to the point that was made by Ms Mochan about whether it should be an opt-in or an opt-out service, if it is assumed that everybody—every GP, nurse and consultant—needs to have training to deliver a service, it may well be that the costs will be greater than if an incremental approach is taken.

Again, that probably touches on the question about the implementation period for the bill. What is the expectation for that? What is the trajectory leading up to implementation and then in the initial years?

I think that there was collective agreement at the Finance and Public Administration Committee in relation to the financial memorandum that this was a very wicked problem to try and get your head around. There is not an example of a similar financial memorandum having been put in place in other jurisdictions. It was an exercise in trying to make some reasonable assumptions around take-up and extrapolating them over the first few years and then up to 20 years out.

The bill and the supporting documents are clear that the process is initiated by a request on the part of the patient for an assisted death, at which point the requirement is for the co-ordinated medical professionals to ensure that they understand the rationale for arriving at that decision, and equally to ensure that the individual is aware of all the treatment and care options that are available.

Listening to the evidence that the committee has heard in recent weeks, I recognise that, as much as one would like definitive clarity, proscribing or prescribing what a medical professional can and cannot discuss with their patient is territory into which we, as parliamentarians, probably need to tread very carefully. The expectation is that the process is initiated by the patient making the request, and thereafter the process and the safeguards that we have taken the time to discuss this morning would kick in.

I will bring Dr Ward in on that. Having a mental disorder does not preclude someone from accessing the option that would be available under my proposals. A capacity assessment would still need to be undertaken in the context of the decision around an assisted death. Appropriate supports could be put in place to ensure that the individual’s capacity was realised, but with some conditions, it might be felt that a mental disorder impacts on the capacity to make a choice about assisted death. In those instances, the person would not meet the eligibility criteria.

I am pretty sure that the figures are based on just medical staff, but I will ask Nick Hawthorne to answer that.

I have been interested in those surveys. Going back to the response that I gave about how many people are likely to be involved in the process, as we see from jurisdictions with similar models, it is a relatively low number. It is likely to be a very low number in the first and second years, but over time, it is likely to increase.

At the end of last year, I spoke at the Hospice UK conference in Glasgow. It was clear to me from the exchanges there that there is a considerable amount of discussion and debate about the issue in the palliative care sector. There are certainly people who strongly oppose a change in the law, and people who are similarly strongly in favour of it. A great many people have questions and simply want to know how it would impact on the care that they deliver to their patients. As I said to them, I think that introducing the choice of an assisted death as one of a range of end-of-life choices allows them to do what they do well, which is meet the needs and limit the suffering of the people they support.

Attitudes to legislation before it is in place often change, and can change dramatically, after the legislation is introduced, when people have a clearer understanding of what the implications may be. I do not see any reason why the situation here in Scotland would be any different from that in states in Australia and the US where practitioners have engaged in the process and, as I said, have often found that one of the most rewarding things that they are able to do is give those whom they are supporting a good death. That seems to be at the heart of what palliative care is about.

I have heard the concerns, and I have tried to do my best to engage with the sector to provide a degree of reassurance. Obviously, the bill, which includes a conscientious objection clause, does not compel anybody to engage with the process, but I am confident that there will be sufficient doctors to support it. As I said, those numbers are likely to increase over time as understanding and confidence increase and as the training is rolled out to practitioners.

That evidence was very interesting. It is also fair to say that the BMA and the Royal College of GPs seemed to be fairly relaxed about the way in which that part of the bill was expressed.

I recognise that this is an element of the bill on which the detail is probably more appropriately set out in secondary legislation and in guidance. Training would be required for doctors to undertake the work that is involved in providing support to patients around assisted dying—we touched on some of that earlier.

As it stands, the bill probably goes as far as it can in expressing who is likely to be involved in this process, but there is an opportunity there. My expectation is that the Government would work with the professional bodies to identify how best to express that through secondary legislation and guidance.

That would certainly be my view; I am conscious that others take a different view on that. I think that there is a way of ensuring that the information that is needed is captured appropriately.

As I said, I was reassured to some extent in my discussions with the CMO and his colleagues that there is a way of navigating the matter so that it is undertaken sensitively but makes absolutely sure that the relevant information is available so that we have the understanding that we need about how the legislation is working in practice.