Now let’s put our efforts into supporting better palliative care - Sue Webber
It was deeply emotional, it was conducted with rare respect for both sides of what could easily have been a deeply divisive debate. And it was decisive. But I had no sense of triumph or joy, only relief when the Assisted Dying Bill fell by 57 votes to 69 late on Tuesday night.
There was no doubting the sincerity of those MSPs who spoke about the deaths or serious illnesses of loved ones – I have written here about my mother’s cancer − but I began to question whether such highly-charged personal accounts created the right conditions for something which needed calm, objective judgement.
Although the vote appeared too close to call, in the end a clear majority of MSPs accepted the safeguards against coercion were simply not sufficient, despite considerable effort to strengthen them. I’m not sure they can ever be.
Experts on coercive control have highlighted how subtle and deeply embedded this pressure can be, particularly in abusive relationships in which victims come to see the world through the perspective of their abusers.
Only when they have had time and space to reflect on their experience can they see what’s been happening and even a small risk creating the circumstances for an irreversibly tragic outcome was too great to take. Crucially, no-one could say how coercion could be reliably detected.
I agree with the bill’s promoter, Orkney Lib Dem MSP Liam MacArthur, that the issue will not go away, but not in the same way as he meant, because the debate has only exposed how much work is needed to improve care for the terminally ill.
The SNP’s Ruth Maguire, a cancer sufferer herself, was absolutely correct to point out that if the bill had passed NHS funds would be needed for ending lives while the hospice movement would continue to rely on charity.
I too said the Bill risked embedding assisted dying as a normal part of NHS provision and become an expectation for both patients and medical staff. And we were expected to accept that a system of conscientious objection for staff was something which could be worked out later.
Surely if dying is as much a part of life as birth, then hospices deserve to have the same level of support as maternity services? I would not support their nationalisation, because the charities deliver an outstanding service which would wilt under NHS bureaucracy, but the Scottish Government could chose to support the movement to ensure the charities had the necessary resources to meet the need which has been so well demonstrated in this debate.
Across the chamber, two motivations come through clearly. The first was the desire to reduce unnecessary suffering and the second was the desire to respect and protect individual autonomy.
Both are humane values and they are at the heart of the hospice movement, and we have a chance now to put all the passion and emotion of the past few weeks to good use and build something really special which genuinely makes Scotland stand out for the compassion it shows to those in their darkest hours.
Yesterday morning when walking my dog, a woman stopped me and asked if I was Sue Webber. She said she was a palliative care nurse and thanked me for opposing the bill. People were watching and I’m very glad I voted for hope.