TOM HARRIS: Better to have no law change than be saddled with another bad one
It is rare for our politicians to be invited to cast a vote on a subject as profound as life and death.
But today, Scotland's MSPs will do just that, deciding whether a Bill to allow assisted dying will progress through parliament.
It is a subject that has already created bitter divisions in England, with the House of Commons scrutinising a private members' Bill that is due to return to the floor of the House shortly.
For decades various charities and pressure groups have demanded a review of existing law which prohibits terminally ill people seeking to end their lives – and their suffering – prematurely.
Those desperate enough and wealthy enough have occasionally gone abroad to jurisdictions like Switzerland where the state allows adults to seek to end their own lives. But to attempt to do so anywhere in the UK risks prosecution and jail.
Among those Scots who feel strongly about the issue one way or the other, tensions are high as the initial vote at Holyrood draws nearer.
For some, the right to end one's own life, especially when illness has drastically lowered your quality of life, is a human right, one that is necessary to a dignified death as well as life.
For opponents, any change in the law would fundamentally change the relationship between the state and the citizen, and in particular the relationship between the medical profession and a patient.
They fear that Scotland could well end up allowing those without long-term physical conditions – for example, those with mental illnesses such as depression – to choose to die. And they have warned that older people in need of long-term care could feel pressured to choose the 'easy way out' for the sake of their family, rather than endure years of palliative care.
It is not a debate that can have any morally robust conclusion, other than a legislative one that angers as many as it satisfies. As an MP I opposed changing the law, but it would be wrong to say that I felt particularly strongly about the topic, recognising that there were strong and sincerely-held opinions on either side of the debate.
Ultimately, I listened to the advice of colleagues and friends. The late David Cairns, who, despite having been ordained as a Roman Catholic priest before becoming the MP for Inverclyde, never allowed his faith to dictate policy, told me that he did not believe in the 'slippery slope' theory of politics, except in this one case. I agreed with him.
This is the greatest concern for many who oppose the current attempt to legislate. Who is to say that once this massive change in the law is made, further, incremental changes might not be made to expand the scope of the legislation?
Why must you be suffering from a terminal condition to access assisted dying? After all, a permanent, agonising condition, mental or physical, that is not life-threatening is, arguably, less tolerable than a terminal condition.
And where does that lead any society?
But those on the other side of the debate are similarly sincere and have at their disposal a number of strong arguments too.
Tales of dreadfully ill, pain-infused family members and friends who desperately want to end it all can hardly fail to elicit the sympathy of even the most hard-headed opponents of the right to die.
And so the debate will continue, whatever happens at Holyrood today. My own view, that the top of that slippery slope is perilously close to where we would be if this Bill becomes law, has not changed, though I sympathise with those who disagree. But my concerns go further than the actual principle of this Bill.
Holyrood has proved itself to be less than competent when it comes to legislating in controversial areas.
Remember the Gender Recognition Reform Bill? The Offensive Behaviour at Football Bill? The abandoned Named Person legislation? To be frank, I do not trust our MSPs to frame legislation in such a delicate and important area.
There is a stronger case for any such legislation to be UK-wide, or at least Britain-wide. We must not institutionalise separate jurisdictions that might encourage people living on either side of the border to travel north or south to take advantage of a more lenient legal framework.
That is why drugs policy remains – and must remain – reserved to the UK parliament. That's why abortion law should have remained at Westminster, rather than being used as a political football by the Smith Commission when it was deciding which new areas of policy should be devolved to Scotland back in 2015.
Do we really want to see ill and vulnerable people encouraged to move from or to Scotland in order to seek the state's help to die? That is hardly the bright future that the advocates of devolution promised in the 1980s and '90s.
Better to have no change in law at all than to be saddled with another bad one.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
10 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Women will no longer be prosecuted for aborting own child at any stage of pregnancy under changes to the law set to be passed next week
Women will no longer face prosecution for aborting their own baby under changes set to be passed by MPs next week that would herald the biggest overhaul of abortion law for half a century. Under the proposals abortion would effectively be decriminalised and women would no longer face prosecution if they ended their own pregnancy after 24 weeks or without approval from doctors. The changes are said to have the backing of more than 130 backbench MPs meaning it is likely to be approved when MPs are given a free vote on amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill next week. Six women have appeared in court in the last three years charged with ending or attempting to end their own pregnancy outside abortion law - a crime with a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. Last month Nicola Packer, 45, was acquitted of taking abortion medicine at home when she was about 26 weeks pregnant. Under the new proposals she would not have been prosecuted for this. The MPs behind the proposed amendments say that reform is long-overdue as the current law leads to vulnerable women being prosecuted, some of whom may have had a miscarriage or stillbirth. However anti-abortion campaigners have criticised the proposals, which they warn would be the most extreme liberalisation of the law since the 1967 Abortion Act and could allow abortion 'up to birth'. Abortion is a criminal offence in England and Wales unless it takes place under strict conditions, including that it is before 24 weeks into a pregnancy and with the approval of two doctors. New laws passed during the pandemic allow abortion pills to be taken at home in a system known as 'pills by post', however this is only allowed up to 10 weeks into a pregnancy. There are very limited circumstances allowing a woman to access an abortion after 24 weeks, such as when the mother's life is at risk or the child would be born with a severe disability. But two amendments to the Crime and Policing Bill would radically alter abortion law in England and Wales. One of the amendments, by Labour MP Tonia Antoniazzi, would mean that a woman would no longer be committing an offence by ending her own pregnancy. However under this amendment anybody else, including a medical professional, who assisted a woman in accessing an abortion outside the law could still be prosecuted. Ms Antoniazzi has described it as a 'small change to the law but one that will have a huge impact on the lives of women', adding that it would protect women from prosecution while retaining the criminal law against abusive partners who end a woman's pregnancy without her consent. A second, rival amendment, put forward by Labour MP Stella Creasy, goes further still and would repeal swathes of legislation and make it a human right for a woman to have access to an abortion. The decision to select one or both amendments for a vote, expected on June 17 and 18, lies with Commons Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle. However it is expected that Ms Antoniazzi's amendment would receive the backing of MPs after a leading pro-choice group yesterday came out against Ms Creasy's plan, warning it is being rushed through without enough scrutiny. Rachael Clarke, head of advocacy at the British Pregnancy Advisory Service (BPAS), said Ms Creasy's amendment does not have the backing of abortion providers whereas Ms Antoniazzi's is supported by more than 50 pro-choice organisations. 'Abortion law is incredibly complex. It governs 250,000 women's healthcare every single year,' she told BBC Radio 4's Today programme. 'Because of that, it is essential that any huge change to abortion law is properly considered. 'That means involvement with providers, medical bodies, regulators - and proper debate time in Parliament.' 'For us, unfortunately, although we truly believe that we need overwhelming and generational change for abortion law, Stella Creasy's amendment is not the right way to do it,' she added.
The Independent
13 minutes ago
- The Independent
What would a Tory spending review look like? With Badenoch, nobody knows
It would be an exaggeration to claim the nation eagerly awaits the invention of 'Badenomics' but Conservatives are certainly impatient with Kemi Badenoch 's apparent inability to create a narrative on the economy, land blows on a weakened Labour government, or compete with Nigel Farage's Reform UK on a key electoral issue. This week's Labour announcements on winter fuel payments and the spending review offer some prime opportunities to 'punch through'. What is the problem? It's hardly confined to today's Conservatives; every political party that has been in power and badly loses an election finds it difficult to get a hearing. Policies the party are most closely identified with are the ones recently and decisively rejected by voters. How far should a heavily defeated team try to claim that they were right all along and that the electorate made the wrong decision? This might be termed the 'blame the voters' approach; while some buyer's remorse may have set in, it's rather futile to attack the electorate. Alternatively, a party can admit mistakes as a means of resetting voter appeal, but that means upsetting former colleagues and handing your enemies an easy win. What are the Conservatives doing about it? Making speeches, for now, rather than policy… and trying to plot a path to redemption. Last week, perhaps in response to internal concerns, shadow chancellor Mel Stride came as close as possible to apologising for the Liz Truss mini-Budget without actually saying 'sorry'. 'Contrition' is the preferred term. Truss has proved to be a potent political weapon, but for the Labour Party, scarcely a day goes by without Keir Starmer or Rachel Reeves making a scathing reference to that disaster. Stride was critical of it at the time, having left the government and as chair of the Treasury select committee; his apology-adjacent speech won't stop Labour deploying Agent Truss (and she keeps popping up, unhelpfully) but it might blunt the attacks somewhat. What are the Tories saying about the rest of their record? Still fairly proud of it. Badenoch says the Tories made 'a lot of good things happen', such as reforms to social security, plus 'near full employment' and raising school standards. 'But people remember the most recent period … and I think the most recent period was the most difficult,' she concedes. So it is Rishi Suank's fault for 'talking right, governing left' as she has put it. So Badenoch is sorry-not-sorry? The Tory mistakes she points to, such as on Brexit and net zero, actually come from the right, not the centre, and don't necessarily chime with public opinion. A passionate and now obdurate Eurosceptic, she seems to want more Brexit at a time when the voters have concluded it was a flop; as the years go on, she'll need to say if she would reverse Starmer's 'Brexit reset' that builds closer, easier relations with the EU. She will also be asked if she would scrap planning reforms that boost growth, stop skilled migration, bring back zero-hours contracts, reduce VAT on private school fees, and so on. She will also need to eat many of her own words as a minister on climate change and green growth, now she's a 'net zero sceptic'. She may hope to win back some Reform voters by tacking to the right, but she can never out-Farage Farage. Indeed, she's ridiculed him for promising economic fantasies, so how can she now embrace them and return to Boris Johnson-era cakeism? Where are the Tories with winter fuel payments for pensioners? They are demanding an apology from Labour. But Labour's present policy is identical to Badenoch's – restore the payment for all now, but try to means-test it later – so she is disarmed, and cannot even claim credit for forcing the U-turn, which was obviously down to Labour panic after local election losses. And what do the Tories say about the spending review? Badenoch's line is that there would not be a black hole in public finances if they'd won the last election, and taxes would be lower. The latter part is true, but equally a hypothetical Tory government would now be imposing an even more painful squeeze on social security and public services, to the point where the numbers would simply not be credible, leading to strikes. Voters sensed this unreality last July, and as time passes the Tories will have to come up with credible plans of their own rather than relying on Jeremy Hunt's pre-election claims. Anything else? Plenty. Stride may be doing his best, but Badenoch seems more interested in 'culture wars' than macroeconomics, which is a problem. Her shadow frontbench team is surprisingly lacking in talent and Labour ministers, despite their relative inexperience, mostly run rings around their opponents. Can the Conservatives forge the 'Right Approach' again? In truth, the Tories are on a long march back to the centre and sooner or later will have to accept climate change and exorcise the ghosts of Truss and Johnson. They need to show themselves trustworthy and realistic, and willing to compromise with their lost voters. These are the kinds of radical, symbolic 'unthinkable' things Tony Blair had to do to make Labour electable in the 1990s, and Starmer did afresh in recent years. Only then will voters lend their ears. Badenoch isn't the leader for that task.
BBC News
14 minutes ago
- BBC News
MSPs vote in favour of scaled-back social care reforms
MSPs have unanimously passed legislation which will allow people in care homes to receive visits from a named loved one even in restricted Care Reform (Scotland) Bill will also introduce changes to social care procurement and a new right to breaks for unpaid legislation was backed by 116 votes to to introduce a national care service, which were initially part of the bill, were dropped in January after unions withdrew support and a number of health boards and care organisations expressed concerns. What changes to social care are planned? One of the big changes planned under the new law is a legal right to breaks for unpaid mean councils will have a duty to decide whether a carer is able to take sufficient breaks from their caring they are not, then the local authority will provide support to enable this, such as providing funding for short respite policy, given Scotland has around 700,000 unpaid carers, will cost between £196m and £315m by 2035/36, according to the Bill's financial it remains a fraction of the £13.9bn that unpaid care is currently saving Scotland every to the way information is shared in health and social care - to make it less likely that people will have to repeat their information - as well changes to procurement rules in the sector are also up the powers that watchdogs can take against failing care providers is also part of the most high-profile part of the Care Reform (Scotland) Bill is Anne's Law, which allows people in care homes to receive visits from a named loved one even in restricted is named after Anne Duke, who died aged 63 in November 2021 after being cut off from her family while battling early-onset dementia during the Covid pandemic. Why was the National Care Service ditched? The original proposal for a National Care Service, inspired by the NHS, was to take social care provision and staff away from local authorities into a new national was then dropped in favour of creating a national care board to supervise service delivery and improve consistency - but this failed to win over a growing number of body Cosla and trade unions then withdrew their support for the project, while a number of health boards and care organisations also expressed plan, which was also subject to a series of delays, was eventually scrapped in January after £30m was spent on the Care Minister Maree Todd said at the time she was "still committed to the ambitions of the National Care Service" but added the SNP no longer had the support it needed in parliament to pass its original plans into law.
