Scottish Catholic Observer

The debate on the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill last week, which preceded the proposed legislation’s rejection by MSPs, was one that showcased the strengths of the Scottish Parliament. However, it also suggested that those who care about religious freedom in Scotland should fear for its future.

In present-day Scotland, parliamentarians had much to say on assisted suicide. Over three hours 32 MSPs gave speeches, universally thoughtful and considered. Members of all parties rose to the occasion and treated this matter of life and death with the respect it deserved. This is a matter that should not be merely accepted or rejected but considered in all fullness, the arguments heard before a judgement is reached.

Patrick Harvie, made the case as strongly as he could for the bill, and it was analysed, dissected, considered and dismissed. The collegiate style of Holyrood meant that happened in a respectful way, encouraged the members to open up emotionally and philosophically.

Labour MSP Neil Findlay seemed to speak for many when he said this was the ‘most difficult issue that I have had to consider in 12 years as an elected politician’.

SNP MSP George Adams, whose wife has Multiple Sclerosis, was starkly honest about his fears over the end of her life. His SNP colleague Dennis Robertson was similarly emotional about the loss of his 18-year-old daughter Caroline, who died in 2011 after struggling with a severe eating disorder, as he said he was opposed to the bill.

“She wanted to die, she said on several occasions” ‘Let me die, I can’t live with this illness, you need to help me die, please help me die,’” he said. ‘”I couldn’t do that. I loved her too much. I wanted her to live.”

In a different vein, Liberal Democrat Alison McInnes gave a surprising but impressive speech describing her opposition to be bill as ‘a liberal and a humanist.’

“It is precisely because there is an inalienable right to life for everyone, equally, that the so-called right to die for some cannot be countenanced,” she said.

Conservative MSP Murdo Fraser took a different but elegant route to the same position.

“The question that we have to ask is: have we really become a society that says that the best answer that we can provide and the best that we can do for those in suffering in end-of-life situations is to help them to kill themselves?” he said.

“Is that really the best that we can offer? That sounds to me to be a desperately cold and soulless society, and I think that, in Scotland today, we are better than that.”

Despite the best efforts of Patrick Harvie and his supporters, these voices carried the day. Yet it could easily have been different.

Looming over proceedings was the late, great Margo MacDonald (left) who brought forward the last attempt to legalise assisted suicide in Scotland, and this one before she tragically passed away. For all she was Scotland’s greatest champion of assisted suicide, she may well have proved a friend to those who opposed it.

Legislative drafting was not her greatest talent and as a Parkinson’s sufferer she may well have been too close to the subject to retain an objective eye. As a result the bill lacked crucial definitions and was designed to apply not just to those with terminal conditions but those with ‘life limiting’ conditions, an extremely broad range.

The health and sport committee, faulted it for being significantly flawed, on these grounds, and MSPs frequently referenced this in the debate.

Indeed, a central part of Mr Harvie’s pitch was MSPs should vote the bill through to the next stage to improve it as he conceded it had many ‘areas for improvement.’

MSPs rightly concluded that was a very big ask on such a serious matter, but it was clear that a better-drafted, more tightly focused bill could have won more support.

No doubt the proponents of assisted suicide will try again with such a bill before too long, but during the course of the debate an even more worrying trend emerged. A number of speakers, making clear their lack of faith, while mouthing respect for those had it, suggested that religion should have no place in this decision.

This tendency was most pointedly articulated by independent MSP Jean Urquhart, who acknowledged ‘the views of those who are of a religious faith—I am not—and they do appear, judging by my mailbox, to be the largest group opposing the bill.”

“They have their reasons for doing so, and I can respect that,” she continued. “They would never consider using the permissions that the bill would allow, and that is their right, but I would ask that they respect those of a different belief. It would be very wrong if the bill were to fail today on any religious grounds.”

These are words that should chill. If you do not believe a complex moral issue like this is a matter for religion you do not believe anything is. Further, you do not understand what religion is. That for those who belief it forms the very centre of their morality, their ethical heart. Although assisted suicide was defeated this time, it doubled its support from five years ago. In addition the vast majority of its support came from SNP MSPs, who look set fair to dominate Scottish politics for years to come.

That rigidly secular view, which sees no reason or purpose for religion, is nestled in the heart of Scottish politics.