Dave Thompson MSP

Dave Thompson, MSP for Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch recently (27/05/15) delivered a speech in Parliament as part of a debate on the Assisted Suicide Scotland Bill and went on to oppose the proposal, as MSPs rejected the Bill by 82 votes to 36.

The Bill’s intention was to allow those with terminal illnesses to seek the help of a doctor to end their own life.

Mr Thompson said, “This Bill has drawn strong views from all over my constituency and in Scotland as a whole and I respect all of those opinions. However, on consideration of the merits of the Bill, I voted against and I am pleased that the proposal was defeated by 82 votes to 36”.

I have lost close family members to breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, stroke, dementia and suicide, therefore I am aware of how dreadfully upsetting the whole process for the individual and the family can be.

I have a Christian Faith but that was not my reason for opposing the Bill, although there were significant moral, theological and spiritual reasons to oppose it”.

Dave went on,

“I accept that it is difficult to argue against a person retaining control of their fate, as their health declines.

However, my concern is that the desired effect of taking control would not be achieved, as control would be placed in the hands of a third party. It is important to bear in mind that whilst most people are good, many are not, and I fear that the affected person might succumb to pressures to end their life from selfish or financially motivated parties, or even from innate pressures that build, as the person feels like a burden on those around them”.

Notes:

The Assisted Suicide Bill was originally brought forward by the late independent MSP Margo MacDonald, who died last year after a long battle with Parkinson's disease.

It was taken up by Green MSP Patrick Harvie, who said he gave a commitment to Ms MacDonald to present this Bill as best he could to Parliament.

Dave’s Speech Below:

Official Report: Assisted Suicide (27/05/15)

Dave Thompson (Skye, Lochaber and Badenoch) (SNP): I welcome the opportunity to take part in today’s debate and I thank all those within and outwith Parliament who have been and are involved in it. To put my position into context, I have lost close family members to breast cancer, pancreatic cancer, stroke, dementia and suicide. I have a Christian faith but I do not argue against the bill today from a faith-based perspective, although there are strong moral, theological and spiritual reasons to oppose it. I accept that it is difficult to argue against a person retaining control of their fate as their health declines, but I believe that writing assisted suicide into law would achieve the opposite effect, as control would subtly be placed in the hands of a third party. Another important factor that we must bear in mind is that not everyone is good, so we cannot be sure that people will not succumb to pressure to end their life from unscrupulous, selfish or financially motivated parties.

Patrick Harvie: As I acknowledged in my opening remarks, I accept that such circumstances as Dave Thompson describes take place. The question for us is not whether they should take place, but whether we should allow them to take place in a legal vacuum and without people having the ability to seek support in a well-defined and well-regulated way. Passing or rejecting the bill will not avoid the threat of coercion in certain circumstances, but passing it will give us some legal clarity about how best to identify and remedy such situations.

Dave Thompson: I do not accept the premise of that point. The cabinet secretary mentioned that that legal point has not been accepted. As the Health and Sport Committee heard, we humans are relational—we are community dependent, and our decisions affect the views and decisions of others. In a society in which sporadic thoughts of self-harm and suicide are common, I do not believe that we can allow the law to increase pressure on people to end their life. Even affected individuals who are surrounded by family who care for them may still feel like a burden. The drip-drip effect of that on a person’s psyche could be very potent in their decision-making processes, and some may feel that they have a duty to die. Those who are terminally ill often experience mental health problems such as depression. Depression is an illness and many sufferers report feeling suicidal when they are in the depths of despair. However, with support and treatment they are often later grateful that they did not act on such thoughts when they were in that dark place. We must not allow irreversible decisions to be made when a person is extremely vulnerable, but instead support and help them in every way possible. Enacting the bill would be a retrograde step, particularly when good palliative care is available. We must strengthen that care, not erode it. We must not normalise suicide. Since 2011, the Scottish Partnership for Palliative Care has been advocating greater uptake and awareness of the choices and mechanisms, through the good life, good death, good grief alliance, which I support. Doctors and nurses—those potentially charged with administering assisted suicide—are overwhelmingly against the proposal, which ought to serve as a warning to those making the case for it. The bill fundamentally conflicts with the principles of medical care. At a Health and Sport Committee meeting in January, it was argued that, when considering any legislative proposal, it is essential to reflect on not only the rights that may be conferred on benefactors, but the negative or harmful aspects. In that context, the availability of assisted suicide would add to the psychological distress of patients when they are extremely vulnerable. Members should not just take my word for it. Dr Stephen Hutchison, a former consultant at the Highland Hospice, is “100 per cent” sure that the availability of assisted suicide would compromise the care of patients. I recognise the intentions of the bill in aiming to introduce additional choice, subject to conditions, for people with terminal, life-shortening conditions. None of us wants to see another human being, or ourselves, in prolonged and severe pain. However, enshrining assisted suicide in law would take us into dangerous territory. It would short-cut proper compassion and destroy our social responsibility. It would be the thin end of a large wedge: the policy memorandum that accompanies the bill explicitly looks forward to widening the categories of those eligible for assisted suicide, which confirms my fears. Although I accept the good will of those who support it, the bill would put us on a trajectory to a society that no longer places value on life, no longer values the disabled and no longer values the elderly or ill. Where would it end? The bill may well have been introduced in compassion, but it is a dangerous bill and I cannot support it.

See full debate at:

http://www.scottish.parliament.uk/parliamentarybusiness/28862.aspx?r=9970&i=91558