 Good morning please, can I extend a very warm welcome to the panel and to the audience in what is another lovely morning here in Edinburgh. This is the first event to kick off the festival politics which will run from today until Saturday. My name is Collette Stevenson and I am the MSP for East Kilbride and currently a member of the cross party group on End of Life choices. Before I begin my introductions of the panel, can I just say this is a very emotive discussion we're about to have and one which I hope will be treated with sincerity and respectfulness. This event stems from the topic personal is political and as we will discuss some of the areas such as abortion to equal marriage, personal rights have required political action. Is assisted dying Scotland's next great social reform? As we draw upon personal and international experiences to legislation on the table here in Scotland, today we have an expert panel who will discuss the most deeply personal political issues over time. So when personal is political we then have the politics of increasing personal choice and assisted dying is an issue that transcends political norms. Poland has shown this is an issue that unites us rather than divides voters and if we link to other social change issues such as abortion, how has choice been achieved historically? The politics of dying in the 21st century has seen 200 million citizens worldwide now have access to the assisted dying law for Scotland proposed by our very own Liam McArthur MSP. So what can we learn from that experience? So I'm going to leave it on that note, I'm going to introduce you to our panel but may I give a quick run through of how today's event will run. Panel members will each have about five minutes to speak, introduce themselves and discuss their reasons why they became involved in the session and how they feel the issue of end of life choices links to other social change movements. The audience will then have the opportunity to ask questions to the panel and please can I remind all audience members to keep their questions short and succinct. I am mindful that some audience members may wish to share their harrowing personal stories but this is not the focus of the session today. Please also note that after today's session there will be a breakout area in the cafe bar for anyone wishing to continue on with the discussion and share their views and experiences. We'll then have the closing remarks from the panel and then the meeting will close. Can I just add as well, today we have the pleasure of Alex Greenhitch MP for Sydney and I'll give you a wee brief introduction of the experience that Alex actually brings today. He's an independent member for Sydney in the New South Wales Parliament in Australia. He introduced landmark reforms into the house including the voluntary assisted dying bill which recently became law and will offer end of life choice to people with terminal illness. Alex's forthcoming equality bill will remove LGBTIQA plus discrimination from New South Wales law and Alex will join the panel online. So thank you Alex for joining us today. So I'm actually going to stop there and I'm going to introduce our first panel member who is Ruth Davidson. Thank you Ruth. Thanks Gillette. Hello, thank you all for coming out today. My name is Ruth Davidson, I used to be an MSP here, I was here for 10 years up until May of last year at the election. I think that the personal can be intensely political. The most personal speech I ever gave in my 10 years here was talking about equal marriage and it was also the most nerve wracking I was up. All night the night before I was sick before I spoke about it despite having been quite high profile when I was running to be the leader of my party, my sexuality. It's not something I talked about in public much before and the whole process of that bill and taking it forward was intensely political because it bisected lots of really hard themes about love and faith and rights and things that were intensely personal to people. I'm here today because I'm one of those rare beasts who is a politician that's prepared to say that they've changed their mind. One of the other pieces of legislation that came to Holly Rudewella was a member here, was a private member's bill on assisted dying and I voted against it. One of the things that happens when you leave a parliament is you have a think about and you kind of go back and think about all of the things that you got involved in, what you didn't do, the misses, the losses, the wins. This was the one that felt like it really got away and I felt a bit cowardly at the time and I felt nothing but cowardly since. The reason I was able to vote against it was because it was quite badly drafted law at the time. It wasn't very watertight, there were lots of issues with it and I was able to strike down the text without fully engaging in the substance of it. Again, a very, very difficult subject talking about what it is to live, what it is to die, who has agency, where the state should come in, what rights we have over our own bodies. Also added to that was my own Christian faith, the fact that my sister is an NHS doctor, all of that played into what I was thinking about at the time. Like I say, I was able to in clear conscience say no at that time because the actual law wasn't good enough but on the issue I have had a bit of a journey on this and everything that's happened in my life in the seven years since that bill came here has pointed me to the fact that this is something that I think needs to happen and is ready to happen. The intellectual arguments haven't changed. It is surely wrong that people who seek release are kept in pain. It's surely wrong that if you've got £10,000 you can go to Switzerland if you don't, you can. I think that it's wrong that 300 terminally ill people a year in the United Kingdom seek to take their own life to end their own suffering and I think it's wrong that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland you can face up to 14 years in prison for helping somebody and in this country in Scotland you can face a culpable homicide charge. But for me it was actually not the intellectual arguments, it was the personal arguments. Everything that has happened in my life since then, IVF, the amount of choice that I had over choosing a donor you could filter by eye colour, by blood group, all of this sort of thing, the agency you have over your own life, 50,000 people a year go through IVF in this country and the church has nothing to say about that but it has an awful lot to say about end of life issues. Issues with people within my own family having life limiting conditions and I know we don't want to talk in great detail about our own personal experiences. All of that has played into where I think that we should be. And I think that it seems to me that there is an imbalance here, there is an imbalance that people who desperately wish to be released from pain, who want to be able to be in charge of their own pain management and of how and of where and of who is there and of how their pain is managed at the time of death aren't allowed to do so. And there is an imbalance to me from people who are campaigned on this and have spoken at events like this, who say that it is wrong that it's people without terminal illness that are making the decisions over people who have it. And I think if we look around the world there's 200 million people that live in countries or states where this is legal and not one of them have chosen to rescind the law once they've introduced it. And I think that's quite telling and I think in terms of conclusion to let us get into where everyone else is and we can talk about protections and all the rest of it. I think the biggest imbalance is that those who desperately want this aren't trying to impose it on those people who don't but that those people that don't want this are telling the people who desperately want to need it that they don't even have a choice. And that's I think where parliaments can step in and can change the law. So that's my journey to getting here. Thank you. Thank you very much Ruth and I'm going to pass over to Kezia. Thanks Collette and good morning folks. My name is Kezia Dugdale. I'm now the director of the John Smith Centre at the University of Glasgow which exists to make the positive case for politics and public service. And it's through that vein of trying to promote civilised healthy debate where we all learn to disagree better that I want to pay tribute to Liam actually because I can't think of a better MSP, a better placed MSP to do that work here in the Scottish Parliament of changing minds and driving such an important issue forward. Why am I here? Why blame Margo MacDonald actually? When I first got elected in 2011 the Labour offices were on the ground floor of this building and Margo MacDonald's office was right at the very end and she knew everything about everyone. You couldn't go to the loo without Margo MacDonald knowing that you were on your way. And as the years went by actually she relied as many folk will know on a mobility scooter to get to and from the vote. She used this as a weapon or should I say a road blockade because what she would do is she would park the mobility scooter across the bottom of the corridor and basically kettle you in. And there she had you captive. And it was actually through those conversations with Margo over the years that I became a firm supporter of this particular issue of progressing it through Parliament because Margo made such a compelling case. You've heard some of that already from Ruth this morning. Too many people were dying, undignified deaths and a great deal of pain. Their nearest and deadest were facing severe legal jeopardy. That was deeply unjust. And also the indignity of knowing you could access help and support if you had the money and if you didn't you couldn't. Those were Margo's three arguments that were used so persuasively over the years. I've got to tell you though when it moved to the floor of the Parliament like Ruth I voted against it and I don't have many and that's after being a signatory to the bill actually. I was one of the 18 people that signed the bill when Margo put it forward and since the theme of today is the personal being political I want to tell you why and do so very honestly. So by the time it got to the floor of the Parliament due to the length of the legislative process and the decline of the Labour Party's fortunes I was leader of the Labour Party by that point. Surrounded by lots of advisers that wanted to tell me what the best thing for the party was and what the best thing for me to do was. And I was persuaded that the public were against this and perhaps more specifically that Labour voters were against this. That I would damage my party, that I would create disunity within my party if I were to vote for it whilst leader. And I was persuaded that that was just a bit of unnecessary pain. Now you might think I should have been bigger and have more courage and more character to have overcome that at the time. You may well be right and I regret that. But also I went home at night to a partner who told me then that if I voted for it I might as well not come home again. And I mentioned that again today because these two factors of public opinion and what we perceive public opinion to be and the deeply personal circumstances of how people's relationships function, what they've experienced themselves and how that relates to their politics are the two barriers in the way of this. This particular issue now becoming law. And I think if we are in the business of changing people's minds, if we want to build consensus and majority, it makes sure that those that disagree with us can do so respectfully without being othered, without being victimised, without having their concerns ignored. That's the way to building a piece of legislation which will pass the test of time and also advance the rights of people who really need this progress to be made. So, thank you for that opportunity to share that experience with you and I look forward to the rest of the conversation this morning. Thanks, Kezia. I'm now going to pass over to Liam. Thank you very much, Colletteon. Can I add a very warm welcome to all of you? Thank you for joining us. My name is Liam McArthur. I am the member in charge, the MSP that's looking to bring forward the latest bill to trying to amend the law in relation to assisted dying. I very much recognise Kezia's description of Margo's kettling tactics. I seem to find myself kettled into Queen'sbury House Bar, which is now affectionately known as Margo's, where I was treated to a discourse on the case for assisted dying. She was pushing against an open door unlike Kezia and Ruth. I have been a supporter of assisted dying throughout my time in Parliament since 2007. But I well remember sitting listening to a member's debate. I think it was the first time I had gone into the chamber for a debate I wasn't due to participate in. And listening to my former colleague Jeremy Purvis, leader debate, he was looking to bring forward a bill. This was before Margo had brought forward her bill. But to bring forward a bill based on the Oregon model. And it struck me that those such as Jeremy and those across the chamber making the argument for change. We're doing something pretty profound but also doing something pretty brave. I mean I know Kezia and Ruth have castigated themselves for what they refer to as cowardice. But it struck me on that occasion that this was a difficult issue, almost a third rail that your political career would be damaged possibly terminally so if you were to engage in the case for change. I think over the years that debate has developed but that debate I think proved to me what this Parliament should be about. It didn't break down political lines. There were those from all parties arguing both sides of the argument and doing so passionately and without resorting to the usual kind of political brickbats. I remember a more recent debate on Margo's bill that was taken up by Patrick Harvey by that stage after Margo's untimely death and making the case in support of a bill that was, as Ruth said, far from perfect. It would have needed an awful lot of amending at stage two and stage three but we never got the opportunity to test that proposition. I find that regrettable. But I argued passionately in favour of it. My colleague Alison McInnist sitting behind me in the chamber argued passionately against it and again it was one of those occasions where I felt enormously proud of this Parliament and what it was able to do in terms of giving voice to a debate that is happening day and daily across the country. I feel though now that the political mood has shifted. It is more in line with where the public mood has been for some time now but there is a desire to see a change in the law and that is driven in large part by the sort of personal experiences that Ruth spoke into but I think the everyday experience of very many MSP colleagues across the chamber. And while the bill I'll look to introduce probably early next year will need amending. There's very few of any bills that don't get amended over the course of their passage through Parliament. I detect a desire amongst more of my colleagues now to find reasons to vote for it rather than as Ruth was describing before finding reasons to vote against it. There is a long way to go but this is I think the next great I'll call it liberal reform or social reform. I think once we pass this law we will wonder why on earth it's taking us so bloody long to do so. But we need to get the detail of this right. I'm looking forward to hearing from Alex very shortly because I think some of the experience that we're seeing internationally particularly in some of the states in Australia is very pertinent for the debate we're going to have. Here in the in the Scottish Parliament. So with that professional and seamless segue I will I will look forward to the question and answer session. And thanks. Thanks very much. And I know happens that on CPG that Liam's contribution has been really insightful. So thank you. And on that I will pass over to Alex and we're really looking forward to your contributions today Alex. So thank you. Thank you. Well good morning everybody and good evening from Sydney. I'm from the. And we're on Gadigal land in Australia. We always acknowledge first nations people on whose land we meet. And I'm really pleased to be here to contribute and share our thoughts on the Australian. From the outset let me just say you will achieve voluntary assisted dying in Scotland. It is a reform that is critically important to your community and a reform whose time has come a little bit of background on me. I'm a member for Sydney and Metropolitan Sydney. I'm an independent. I led Australia's campaign for marriage equality and in 2019 I also legislated to decriminalise abortion in New South Wales. Just this year a few weeks or months ago we legislated for voluntary assisted dying that by far was the most emotive and most personal reform I have been involved in. Parliaments do not talk about death a lot. We like to talk about all the good news stories, the announcements and things we have achieved. We don't like to talk about death. And the reality is though we all die and some people die well. Some people die poorly. And what we're talking about is legislation which is for people who have a terminal illness, who are dying and who want to have the choice to be able to pick the time and seconds answers in which they die through a range of safeguards which no doubt will be in place in the Scottish law. I think that the big learnings from the New South Wales experience in our parliament is a Conservative parliament. The leaders of the Labour Party and the Conservative coalition who governs both opposed my legislation but both allowed a free vote or conscience vote on the legislation. And I think although it was an extremely personal and emotive story, supporters of the bill spoke about family members or friends who they had seen with the terminal illness dieherifically. Opponents of the bill spoke about their own personal experiences and why they opposed the legislation. Critical to the entire debate was a respect for everybody's views. And the position in which everybody comes to. And people came to this debate from a very personal position, from a faith-based position, from a professional position. The deputy leader of the National Party, who was a coalition partner in our government, was a pallidive care nurse, a strong supporter of the bill because of that experience. And we had people who were strongly representing their constituents' views, which were always in support of the bill. And some who were actually really confused about the detail of the legislation and really needed time to analyse it. So what I really learned was respect and patience were critical to the legislation passing through our parliament. One of the benefits of the tension between the opponents and supporters of reform, and this has actually been seen in every single Australian jurisdiction that has legislated for voluntary assisted dying, is we saw a unanimous support for an increase of funding and access to pallidive care services. And as a result of the legislation passing up our parliament, the New South Wales government also invested a further 750 million Australian dollars in pallidive care services. So between the increased funding and access to pallidive care and what I feel is one of the strongest and most robust pieces of voluntary assisted dying legislation, New South Wales is now a really good place to die, whereas previously this was a topic our parliament didn't want to talk about. Obviously the detail of the legislation is critical. We had had a similar experience with legislation which had gaps in it previously and was voted down. And it's almost good that that was voted down because we were able to then have a stronger piece of legislation that was introduced into this parliament. I would say as the debate goes along, it's going to be really important to listen to and work with opponents and to not be adversarial but to identify where common ground can be gained. We're very careful in the New South Wales legislative process not to put in place new barriers. So I'll give the example of a psychiatric assessment. In some cases, a referral to a psychiatrist is important but not in all cases. So we ensure that there were guidelines which created pathways for an adoptive belt that was appropriate rather than mandating another level which would create an access barrier for others. And that was a common theme throughout our legislation, really empowering the doctors, putting in place strong guidelines and having the person at the heart of the reform. The personal stories which members heard were obviously very harrowing and a critical advocate for us were healthcare workers. People, particularly emergency services people, ambulance officers and the police. The police union and the nurses union and the emergency services union all backed our legislation. Too often police would arrive at the home of a person with a terminal illness who had suicide in a very gruesome way. Our coroner was able to release data that 25% of suicides of people over the age of 40 are linked to a terminal diagnosis. Surely we can do better than that. And what I said to opponents at the time is what we need to facilitate is a conversation between people with a terminal illness and their doctor about their end of life choices. Of which one should be voluntary assisted dying. So they feel they have that control and that option. But in the vast majority of cases will result in the person being referred to appropriate palliative care or other treatment services. This is voluntary assisted dying. It is an option for people. It is an option which prevents someone with, as we know, say advanced bowel cancer from dying from choking on their own feces or someone with advanced lung cancer from dying from drowning in their own fluids. We know that's how these advanced terminal illnesses end. And it's critical that we give people an option, a safe option, an option about where they can control to make sure that they can go in peace and dignity and with their loved ones around. It was what I would say, whether you support this reform or opposed to this reform, members across opinions on this have said this was one of the most important debates for our parliament. It was one of the most honest debates that our parliament has had. As I said, the legislation passed with a strong margin, but we all were able to celebrate as a result of strong investment in palliative care and an honest conversation about death, which is something that will happen to all of us. Thank you very much. Alex, I wonder if you could possibly give advice to our parliamentarians and activists here in Scotland who hope to see similar legislation as Liam touched upon? Well, look, I think I probably outlined a lot of that in my opening remarks. I think respect for opposing views and patience with undecided members of your parliament is critically important. I think research and statistics is critical and I think the role of healthcare workers is really important to share what they see at the front lines. You will benefit, as we did in New South Wales, from plenty of legislative models around the world, which get increasingly sophisticated. We have in Australia voluntary assisted dying in place since 2017 in Victoria, and now every state has it in place. Slightly different models, but largely the principles are the same. So we know this is safe. We know this is an option that people want and we also know that this is an option that not a lot of people take or can access because of the safeguards in legislation. We need to not get into this ideological debate about which we can go down this path around the sanctity of life. This legislation is about people who are dying and they want to be able to die well in a peaceful way and have some control over that. Another really interesting piece of research has come out of Victoria, who have done the state to our south, who have already done statutory reviews of their legislation. It is really interesting to know that people go through this process to the point in which the substance is prescribed to them and they don't take it. They just want to have the option. It gives them that sense of control and that sense of peace, that if things are getting bad, they do have a safe pathway which they have control on. So this is a reform about options. It's a reform about control and it's a reform about really doing the best thing in the interest of an individual who has a terminal illness. Thanks very much. That's been a fantastic contribution, Alex, and thanks for attending today. I really appreciate it. So now I'm going to pass over to our audience and if you could put your hand up and state your name as well. Again, can I just remind you all to keep your questions as short and sanctisposal and for the panel members as well. The lady at the back there. Could you stand up please? Thank you very much. My name is Moira Forrest. I'm of a generation that remembers an official assisted dying and in my lifetime the passage to death has become, in my opinion, less humane. So I was particularly interested in hearing what healthcare workers, those counselling people facing death, and perhaps best have to say on the issue. Thanks very much Moira. I'm going to pass over to Ruth and just want to respond to that question. Moira, thank you very much for your question. I think you're right. There's been not just a change in medicine and the way in which we can help people, but there's also been a change within the medical profession. So the Royal College of Nurses have been in support of this for many years, but there has traditionally been or previously been opposition from the Royal College of Physicians, from the doctors and from the BMA, both of whom have dropped their official opposition to assisted dying in the last two to three years. So we've seen a big move in the medical profession. The BMA held out for quite a long time. Their leadership had thought that this was quite important. They pulled their members and I think were probably quite shocked when they saw the change. I think for balance, I should point out that the Royal College of Surgeons still hold the position that they are officially against this, but in terms of the people who are actually in charge of caring for those at the end of their life, the nurses and the medics rather than the surgeons, the nurses have been in support for quite a long period of time and any official opposition from doctors groups has now been dropped. That's a big change. Thanks, Bruce. William, do you want to touch on that? Yeah, just a couple of points following. I mean, Ruth's made probably the most substantive point in relation to where some of the professional representative bodies stand. The consultation responses, the consultation itself that I ran last year, which elicited the biggest ever response we've seen to proposals for members bill since the Parliament was established. Many of those came from those from just those professions with their own experience. I think one of the telling differences between previous consultations and this consultation is how much people have been desperate to share either the personal or the professional or a combination of both experiences. I think that's informed debate in a way that we haven't seen before, but I think picking up one of the points that Alex made as well, and I think it was implicit more in your question, is about the data gathering. It's not perhaps the most obvious or sexiest end or most debated end of this debate, but it's absolutely crucial. I think some of the data that we have on what's happening at the moment, whether it's in terms of the suicide statistics that we see and what's driving that particularly for those with the terminal illness, whether it's in areas of palliative sedation, that's a withdrawal of treatment or withdrawal of food and liquids. All of that we need to capture far, far better than we do already, as well as capturing the data behind the use of assisted dying should we get a change in the law here. I think again Alex made the point that very many people who opt to go down the route of an assisted death don't end up triggering it. In a sense it provides a reassurance, it's an insurance policy that if things get too bad that option is available, but palliative care, which we're lucky in this country is extremely good. I think there's an argument for investing more in broadening the access to it and I would hope that this debate around my proposals will allow that sort of debate to happen and maybe a similar outcome to what we've seen in New South Wales. But I think that data gathering piece is what particularly those in the professions that you've referred to will be very keen to see and I think in terms of the wider public interest we absolutely need to see because at the moment there are far too many grey areas. OK, thanks very much. There's a lady at the back. Yes, hi. Hi there, good morning. My name's Gillian Wright and I'm previously a palliative care doctor but now work in medical ethics. And just on point of clarity I just wanted to say that the vast majority of palliative care doctors in Scotland are opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia because they're extremely concerned particularly for vulnerable patients and the fact that people might be influenced by the fact that this was made, state assisted dying, for example. And I think just for a point of concern if you look at data from Oregon, more than half of patients in Oregon do cite that feeling a burden is one of the reasons that they opt for assisted suicide, not just for pain but actually for feeling a burden. And I think particularly health care workers are concerned that that's not the kind of society we want to build and also particularly in Oregon that suicide rates, general suicide rates have gone up. So there's great concern in the medical profession and just on Ruth's point about the BMA, it was actually those doctors who look after dying patients so oncologists, general practitioners, palliative care doctors, general physicians who are most opposed. And it was those who don't actually look after dying patients so ENT doctors for example, they were the ones who were in favour. So it does bear looking after the data. Can I just ask you to sum up what your actual question is to the panel? Well one of my questions was I was just intrigued by the fact that you're keen to engage with concerns but yet there's nobody on the panel who is opposed. Thanks, Gillian. I mean for point of reference you are from care not killing or duty of care. I think I'm very prepared to engage with your own organisation and with opponents of a change in the law. I think though as I said in my introduction, this is a change that now needs to happen. I think the debate needs to be around how it happens, what are the safeguards that provide at least some reassurance, whether it's to those in the health professions, whether it's to the wider public. But ultimately this is a change that we need to see happen and therefore that's what the focus of those discussions needs to take place. I think in relation to those within the palliative care sector, I think what's interesting in terms of the consultation responses and I need to be slightly careful, I'm due to publish the report on the consultation responses early next month. But as I said before, there were many many responses from those from the health care professions. Many of them though chose to do so anonymously and I dare say one of the underlying factors there is that there is a pressure within the sector not to stick the head above the prior but particularly in areas like palliative care where this might be seen for whatever reason as a conflict with their responsibilities. I think as we've seen across the world this has been introduced in ways that are safe, that do command public support, do command the support of the health care professions and we're not seeing a groundswell in any of those states or countries to see the legislation overturn. So I can understand there are anxieties out there we need to get the detail of this right and I'm very happy to continue to engage but it will be an engagement on how we get this right rather than whether or not we need a change in the law. Can I just quickly as well touch upon what Gillian said in terms of being a burden? I actually see it as helping the family as well and not so much as that vulnerability you touched upon however that burden and the way in which people basically the experience they've got and the trauma from seeing an undignified death. So again with the correct palliative care in place and also just that reassurance of choices as well that it actually aids in the family and friends around them and it's been evidence time and time again about families who have suffered PTSD due to the lack of proper care and what not as well. So I will just leave it at that and I'm going to ask Ruth to I think she wants to make a comment. My maiden speech in the House of Lords when I joined last year was actually on this issue because there was a private members bill that was brought forward there and what was I think most heartening about it was that on both sides there was the concession that everybody is arguing from the point of what they believe to be the best for people at the worst time in their life. And that we absolutely accept that people are coming to this in good faith. And in terms of the point that was just raised I'd just like to clarify the BMA survey which I was talking about had results from 28,986 people and the breakdown of which of their members worked in oncology or elsewhere wasn't made. So I'm absolutely willing to concede that it may be true that palliative care doctors or people from oncology or general practitioners may have. I don't actually think in good faith we can say that that was the result of that poll because that breakdown was never published because there was nearly 29,000 people that responded to it. Thanks Ruth. Can I just take the lady at the front in the green top? This is a question perhaps Chairman if I may through to Liam. To what extent of any were the courty of guardianship involved in consultation and will there be, how do you gauge the likelihood or not of getting consensus on an interfaith basis because if you would take the doctrinal view of somebody like Professor Haldane it might well differ to that of other things. There are no faiths and there's no ethicist or philosopher on the panel this morning. And I wondered in respect of what Ruth said earlier if any of the consultation responses were framed in such a way as to indicate that part of the medical fears might have been about subsequent litigation. Thank you. That's quite a few questions so hopefully Liam can wrap that up quickly. I'll do my best. I think in terms of powers of attorney I suppose that gets us into the territory of advanced directions or living wills. I don't think this bill is going to be able to address that in the way that I know some would wish it to do. I think there are problems there but I would imagine even if it's not contained within the bill I introduced to Parliament it will very much be an issue that will be raised in evidence to the, I'm assuming the health committee who will be the lead candidate. Who will want to take oral evidence on the submissions that are made to it so it will be an issue. I suspect health committee will take the lead but other committees with an interest have an opportunity to be secondary committees and take evidence on specific aspects of it and it may well be that that is picked up by another committee. I'm not intending to include that in the proposals I bring forward. In terms of those of faith it's an interesting one. I don't want to rest too heavily on polling. Understand the limitations of that or the potential pitfalls. Nevertheless I think there are those of pretty much every faith who both support and oppose a change in the law here and there will be probably every grade in between. I recognise that church groups and faith groups may take a position on behalf of their faith of their church but I would contend that that isn't necessarily a position held by everybody in that church or of that faith. We're seeing that in the consultation, we see it in polling as well. I think there's a health warning I would attach to the positions that are held there. The final question was on... Whether from what Ruth has said? Oh, protection... In a sense, that will absolutely need to form part of the law and I think by encapsulating that within the law it provides that legal certainty. You're absolutely right, I think there will be anxieties there. Some that Gillian was referring to before may arise as a result of perhaps fears of litigation but the intention of the bill will be to provide that legal certainty and that legal protection. At the same time we need to find ways of allowing those who have conscientious objection to this an ability to opt out of participant. Even if they then there's still a requirement to signpost as there is for example with abortion but I think recognising that this is a choice and that there are those for whom this does not square with their conscience and we will wish to opt out of participating. We need to find mechanisms for learning to do that. Thanks Liam, I'm obviously conscious of the time because somebody actually reminds me of the time. 10 minutes or so. There's a gentleman over here with his hands up. Maybe it was yourself, sorry. Hello, my name's Gordon Wiley and I am currently the treasurer and former convener of an organisation called Friends at the End which has a great interest in all of this. My question is probably addressed more to Baroness Ruth and anyone else since she's now a member of the United Kingdom legislature. The General Medical Council has jurisdiction over all the medical practitioners in the entire United Kingdom and it does not take account of the fact that our law is different from the law of England and Wales in particular. Ruth, I think it was true attention earlier to the fact that the law there is different and that people can be sent to prison for I think it's up to 14 years if they help somebody in any kind of way even to discuss end of life choices. The General Medical Council has issued a fiat to the fact to effect that you cannot discuss end of life choices with your patients nor can you issue them with certificates that will help them to go to Switzerland. So, I do feel that the General Medical Council needs to be brought into line with the fact that we live in a different jurisdiction here and I wonder if something can be done about that. Thank you. Actually, while I'm happy to take this one, I'm sure Kez and Liam will want to weigh in too. When devolution happened there were lots of pan-UK bodies that didn't have within them a kind of understanding of what that meant or where changes happened and it's not just for Scotland but for Northern Ireland and for Wales as well. As change arises they have to adapt and change too to be able to comply within the laws of the land. I think it's perhaps a bit patrician to say get the GMC into line but I do think that as laws change and as that directly affects their members you will be able to see that reflected in the way in which pan-European bodies like the GMC are also able to work within the laws of each of the four home nations. Is that fair? It's probably time for one or two more questions, sorry. There's a gentleman at the back there. Thank you very much. My name's Gareth Morgan. I wanted to pick up on some of the faith-based points that have been made which I think have been really actually helpful. Thank you in particular to Ruth for making reference to the fact that it's your own Christian faith that partly used to support this. Also to follow up on what Liam was saying, I would really say to all the MSPs who are supporting this legislation, please don't treat the faith groups as somehow being quote on the other side because you rightly say there is a huge perspective within that. I speak myself as a practising Catholic who is actually very keen to see change the law on these lines and although the official Catholic teaching just seems to be completely opposed, when you start delving into Catholic teaching there's all sorts of cases where things may not be seen as desirable but they're not necessarily morally culpable. You get into complicated situations like that. I've certainly found talking to Catholic parishioners after Mass that people are quite sensitive and supportive of the idea that someone in great pain should be allowed to have their life ended. People sometimes don't quite understand the need for legislation. A lot of people say you should just leave it to the doctors, but of course they don't understand that you've got to change the legislation in order to allow doctors to do that. I just wanted to make the appeal. Please as you go forward, can you work on this basis of dialogue with faith groups and recognise there is a lot of common ground to build on and particularly I think there's real scope for bringing the faith communities in on the final processes. We know that in Holland for example there's a lot of close working between palliative care, faith chaplins and assisted dying and that holistic linking people together at the end of life with the spiritual care and the physical care is so important and if that can be focused on the bill that'd be great. Thanks very much for your comments. What I'm going to do is there's a lady at the front there where her hand's up so I think I'm going to take the two comments that you made and the lady there and then I'll ask the panel to comment or whoever wants to comment on it and then we're going to get to closing remarks by each of the panel members. Hello, my name is Kirsten Nielsen and there's two things. I did some living care work and I live on my own abroad from where my family lives. This is my nation and they're still back in Denmark. So I have two issues and I'm wondering if they're going to tag on to this end of life. I would like to keep the right to not be a bother. That's part of my dignity that if I get to a stage where I could be kept from dying as opposed to kept alive it's a very fine line but there's a place in there where I preserve the right to not be a bother. It's one thing. The other thing is does the DNRs tie in with this at all because in my care work I looked after quite a few who had had surgeries to survive which have left them in a situation that was frustrating to them. So frustrating that they came up against the world and had horrible bitter lives, drinking lives, lives of tired of the wars were phrases that came out. So I'm wondering if it could be okay to not be one to be a bother and if the DNRs could maybe also help end of life with dignity. Okay, thank you very much. Would any of the panel members like to comment on? I'll make a couple of very brief comments in relation to the gentleman's point about those of faith. I think as I say it's reflected in what we're seeing and polling it's reflected in what we're seeing in terms of the responses to the consultation. I've certainly tried to offer those reassurances to my MSP colleagues. It's far more influential when those of faith who are supportive of a change in the law contact those MSPs directly. But I think that position, that understanding is far clearer now than it was as I said when I sat in the members debate that Jeremy Purvis led those voices of opposition were very strong, they were very vocal, they were very influential and it did feel like a dangerous place to be in advocating for change. We're no longer there and I think part of that is because people understand that within the faith community there is a breadth of views as there is in the population as a whole. In terms of the right to not be a bother, I think back to the point again that Gilliam referred to about the situation in Oregon and people citing the fact that they felt a burden. That's right, it was a closed list of options to tick. Being a burden though was not amongst the top three. It was the loss of autonomy, the loss of equality of life. Those were the drivers behind the decision to seek and assist the death. They're not wanting to be a bother, they're not wanting to be a burden fed into that but was of a lower order of priority. Actually one of the concerns about vulnerable people being encouraged to shuffle off this mortal calling by nefarious members of the family who are eager to grab on to their inheritance ahead of time. Actually the experience in other countries has been that the resistance to the assisted death has often come from the family and actually getting the wishes of the person that wants to die respected has been difficult. Those conversations about what we do at the end of life, how we want to die and not just how we want to live is I think a very healthy thing for us as a society to engage in it. And as I say coming out of the pandemic we've probably had more occasion to reflect on those sorts of issues than we had previously. I'm not sure how the bill will touch on DNRs. I'll be interested to see what comes through in terms of the evidence to the committee and I'm fairly sure it will feature as part of that debate. So that brings us to the end of our discussion on this and what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask it to the panel members to make a very brief closing remark on this and that will bring us to a close. So can I start with Kezia and ask for you to close up for us Kezia? Thanks Collette and I just really wanted to make one further point which is really about the reference we've made today to Liam's Bill and the consultation around Liam's Bill. It'd be very easy I think after this past hour to think that was the be all and the end all of it and that was the end of you being asked your opinions on this or your ability to influence it. By the point it's introduced to Parliament there will be a really extensive consultation process that will go through the Parliament's three stages. So the Parliament will sit in a full plenary session where the principles of the bill will be discussed and I think at that point for the first time we might see a majority of our MSP colleagues support the principle of what we're talking about today. That doesn't mean it becomes law at that point it goes into a very detailed and considered committee stage where line by line issues are addressed, expert witnesses are brought in, there's the opportunity for citizens of the country to influence that as well. So to address the point that the man at the front made earlier around the legal provisions and how that might be addressed that's the point where you find little knots that need untied. Like perhaps what the role of the Lord Advocate might be in providing additional assurance around any prosecution aspects of what may or may not happen in the event of the law becoming an active Parliament and then it goes into the final stage three part of the parliamentary process where all the MSPs come back together to look at that piece of legislation in the round. Does it do everything we want it to do, there's a further opportunity there for people to amend it from the floor of the chamber. So I just wanted to reassure people that there is a long and considered process here as there is for all pieces of legislation that goes through the Parliament and the chance to examine the detail and to go through this and try and bring as many people as possible with us along that common goal is there for everyone to grasp. On the wider issue the thing that I found most heartening about today's discussion was listening to Alex in New South Wales and him explaining that having had such a process to consider this and to have that serious and often difficult to be one of the things that came out of it was that as well as introducing voluntary assisted dying there was also an uplift in funding for palliative care. A lot of people I think worry that if we introduce this that means that we take money and focus away and it doesn't have to be this way and we're lucky in this country. My wife is Irish she lost her mum to cancer when she was 14 she had been diagnosed several years before she died and she distinctly remembers her mum and dad going round the house working out what to sell to fund some of her care. So we're really lucky but don't think that doesn't mean that you can't also demand better for people at their end of life whether they are given the opportunity to choose this or not because we can and should demand better for palliative care as well as offer people the opportunity to be able to have more agency about how they die, where they die, the sort of pain relief they have when they die, who's with them and what sort of medical care and support that they can have at the time of their death. Thanks just very quickly Liam, can you close the sum up? No, I've probably had more in my allocation of time I think the point that Ruth made in relation to palliative care and the fact that this isn't a zero sum game in fact quite the contrary this is an opportunity to look at what we do in terms of palliative care and the range of end of life choices we have I think could quality palliative care we don't always have the access that we should have particularly to special palliative care. There is an opportunity through this bill to drive forward that debate but there is plenty of opportunity to engage in this discussion. As Ruth said, the hard yards are still to come and getting the detail of this right but I think if we can do so in a respectful fashion and I appreciate there will be those disappointed because they don't want to see a change in the law at all and those who are disappointed because they don't believe this goes far enough but nevertheless I think we can conduct it in a respectful manner. We will come out with legislation that this parliament can be proud of and that this country and our population can have confidence in and that I think must be what we aspire to. Thanks very much Liam. That brings us to the end of this event and it's been so insightful and really really interesting and there's been so many good contributions today and there's been lots of uptake from the audience as well. So can I just say thanks to your panel and Alex is no longer here with us but his contribution today was absolutely fantastic so thank you once again and I'm being told quickly to wind up because we're running out of time. So thanks very much for coming along today and listening to us. It's the first one of our festival politics and there's been an outstanding attendance as well. Thank you very much.