Psychiatrists and pharmacists oppose assisted dying legislation

The Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland has said it now opposes a Bill that aims to legalise assisted dying for terminally ill Scots.

While the College said it “remains neutral” on the principle of assisted dying, it added that the removal of a key section of the legislation currently being debated by Holyrood had “drastically weakened essential safeguards” for psychiatrists and other medical staff.

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society said it too is against Liberal Democrat Liam McArthur’s Bill “following the removal of vital protections to protect pharmacists who may wish to conscientiously object”.

The change in stance from the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland came after section 18 was removed from the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill.

With employment rights reserved to Westminster, there were fears that if the section had remained in the Bill it would have been outside Holyrood’s competence.

A deal has been agreed with the UK Government which should enable employment rights to be protected, should MSPs pass the legislation when it comes to the final vote on Tuesday night.

But the Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland said the now-removed section had “provided crucial statutory protections” for those health staff who would not wish to participate in the assisted dying process.

In a statement, it said: “Its removal eliminates clear legal guarantees and moves these protections into uncertain future secondary legislation, leaving clinicians exposed and the public inadequately safeguarded.”

As such, it said it had “concluded that we cannot support the Bill in its current form”.

The statement was welcomed by opponents of assisted dying, with Conservative MSP Edward Mountain hailing it as “one of the most significant interventions yet in this debate”.

He added: “It makes abundantly clear – even if you were to support the principles of assisted dying – the Bill itself is unsafe, unworkable and full of gaping holes.”

Meanwhile, the Royal Pharmaceutical Society said its “serious concerns” mean it is also opposed to Mr McArthur’s Bill.

It criticised the removal of section 18, which it said contained “vital protections on conscientious objection for pharmacists and other healthcare professionals”.

The Society added the plan for these to be reinstated, through a UK Government section 104 order, is “inadequate and inappropriate”.

It went on to say amendments which would have “clarified what the role of a pharmacist would be when accompanying a doctor or nurse during an assisted death” had been voted down by Holyrood this week.

As a result, it said: “This leaves uncertainty around the role of pharmacists in the assisted dying process. In our view, this is confusing to patients, carers, pharmacists and other healthcare professionals.”

Mr McArthur, however, said if his Bill is passed it cannot come into force until protections for medical staff who wish to opt out of the assisted dying process are in place.

He said: “I have always been clear that because employment law is reserved to Westminster, we would need the collaboration of the UK Government to deliver orders which allow protections related to employment to come into force.

“The UK Government have repeatedly made clear that they will facilitate the necessary parliamentary orders, including the Secretary of State confirming this once more on Thursday.

“Because my Bill cannot come into force until such measures are implemented, those medical professionals who wish to participate will be fully protected in doing so and there is no scenario in which those who don’t would be required to.”

He said the provisions that would need to be put in a section 104 order could also be debated by Holyrood and then “given yet more scrutiny in the UK Parliament”.

The Liberal Democrat added: “This is a robust, belts-and-braces approach so my MSP colleagues can be certain that the law they wish to see will be the law they get.”