5 March 2026
by Emma Cooper
Emma Cooper of Friends At The End (FATE) shares her views on why assisted dying needs to be offered as a choice for terminally ill Scots
There are just two weeks until MSPs vote on the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill.
With Jersey making the landmark move last week to become the second part of the British Isles where assisted dying has been approved – the Isle of Man was the first – the Scottish Government needs to continue to be the progressive administration it has historically proven itself to be.
It has the chance to listen to the people who have indicated en masse and in every constituency that an overwhelming number of them want this, with recent polling showing 81% of Scottish people want assisted dying to be legalised in Scotland.
The people want this and expect their government to support their wishes.
Assisted dying in Scotland: let’s separate fear from fact
As the debate around the Assisted Dying Bill intensifies and we are close to the date MSPs will cast their vote, it has become increasingly clear that much of the loudest opposition is based on fear, not evidence.
This is an issue that demands seriousness and compassion in equal measures. But above all, it demands we listen, really truly listen, to the voice of dying Scots. Their voices cannot be drowned out.
Myth 1: “the status quo protects vulnerable people”
Unfortunately, it simply does not.
End-of-life decisions that hasten death take place within the NHS every day. Patients can refuse treatment, life-sustaining care can be withdrawn, and medication is administered under the principle of double effect, where healthcare professionals know that medication for pain relief will also hasten death. Some people voluntarily stop eating and drinking. None of this is transparent or regulated, there are no checks for coercion or mental capacity, and it can be a cruel prolonged death.
Meanwhile, assisted dying is governed by criminal law. Healthcare professionals administering double effect medication are doing so in murky waters, and can be traumatised by their inability to legally relive suffering. Those who have the financial means can travel abroad to Switzerland, a desperate and expensive decision that can be extremely lonely. Families who assist their loved ones to travel abroad risk prosecution and are subject to lengthy and invasive investigations. It is also hugely unfair, as those without money cannot make this choice. This is not equality.
Terminal illness robs people of control by its very nature, taking someone’s independence, privacy and dignity. They should also not be robbed of choice on how their life ends during their final days.
There will be real-life consequences if Scotland refuses to change the law. People are already desperate and many cannot speak publicly if they are considering travelling abroad over fear legal or social repercussions. Others simply endure suffering because they cannot afford an alternative.
The status quo is not neutral and has huge consequences.
Myth 2: “vulnerable people will be coerced”
In actual fact, it strengthens them.
The bill contains what FATE believes are the strongest safeguards found in any end-of-life legislation internationally.
If the bill is passed, repeated voluntary requests would need to be made by a patient assessed to have mental capacity and a clear understanding of their options. Independent medical assessments would have to take place including checking for any signs of coercion. Medical professionals would be trained to detect coercion and a new specific criminal offence for coercion at any stage would be introduced.
As mentioned, the current system has no regulation or transparency, or enforceable safeguards. The bill would introduce these. Coercion is of course a serious concern, but this is why a legal framework is needed and is much safer than the ambiguity that exists right now.
Claims that the bill removes protection are simply incorrect.
Myth 3: “this is a slippery slope”
This is a phrase that is repeated a lot, but is simply not true and not backed by evidence.
The bill is really tightly defined, and eligibility is limited to mentally competent adults who are terminally ill. The bill is explicit that people with a disability or long-term health condition alone simply do not qualify. There is no ambiguity here.
It is important to stress that across more than 30 years of international data, there is no statistical evidence of uncontrolled expansion. Where legislation that requires a person to have a terminal illness has been introduced, this has not shifted. In our legal system, any future changes would require new primary legislation and another parliamentary vote in Scotland.
Evidence in other countries has also shown that after implementation many of the fears and worst-case predictions just do not materialise and the catastrophic scenarios debated early on never happen.
This is not conjecture, it is actually observable legislative history and data that has been gathered extensively.
Myth 4: “doctors will leave the profession”
There have been public warnings that legalising assisted dying would cause health care professionals to leave the profession. Again, there is no evidence of this from around the world or from related medical interventions.
The bill explicitly protects conscientious objection, and no doctors will be compelled to act against their moral or religious beliefs.
There is already a clear precedent in abortion care where medical professionals can exercise personal belief and opt out. The service is still delivered, doctors have not left the profession en masse, and the profession has not collapsed.
The implication that clinicians cannot navigate personal belief within a regulated system, something which is already evidenced to the contrary, underestimates the professionalism of Scotland’s medical community.
Myth 5: “disabled people are at risk”
This is one of the most emotionally charged arguments in the debate.
In actual fact, the bill is explicit in stating that disability alone does not qualify someone for assisted dying. It could not be clearer that eligibility is limited to mentally competent adults who are terminally ill.
Disabled voices deserve to be heard. But also, they are not a monolith like some disability and religious groups would have you believe, and many disabled people support assisted dying.
In fact, being brutally honest, there are many instances where disability is being used as a shield by groups whose primary objection is religious or ideological. That is not the same thing as safeguarding vulnerable people.
FATE respects the right of religious groups to hold and express their beliefs, but these beliefs should not determine the legal choices available to others who do not share them. This bill protects conscientious objection of course, and rightly so, but does not impose belief.
Myth 6: “the medical profession is united in opposition”
In reality, some healthcare professionals support assisted dying, and some oppose it – along the same percentage lines as the general population. Many medical and healthcare professionals responded to the consultation on the bill sharing their experiences, their trauma, and expressing their support.
Although still taking a neutral stance, six medical bodies recently issued a joint letter raising concerns that were framed as though they represented the settled will of Scotland’s medical professionals. In this case, we believe that these professional bodies have not spoken with unanimity and that their memberships contain a range of views.
Debate is healthy, but high profile interventions should be measured, proportionate and grounded in evidence, and not provocative and at a time that could cause damage. This bill has been scrutinised for years and builds on decades of international legal and clinical experience.
A harder question: who are we listening to?
We often ask people opposed to the bill, have you spoken to a terminally ill person? Not in abstract terms or in a hypothetical moral philosophical way, but to someone whose body is failing them, who is navigating daily loss of autonomy, to someone frightened not of death itself, but of HOW they might die.
No one is talking enough about those voices, and terminal illness is not theoretical, it is lived.
This is about fairness
At present, assisted dying operates in practice as a two-tier system. Those with the financial means to travel abroad can access a regulated service in another jurisdiction, while those without resources are left without that option. That inequality exists now and is not speculative or neutral, but deeply unfair.
The bill before Scottish Parliament proposes a tightly defined, safeguarded option for mentally competent adults who are terminally ill. It does not extend beyond that scope, and it does not diminish the importance of protection.
Opposition to the bill is entirely legitimate in a democracy. However, arguments rooted in fear, exaggeration or misrepresentation do not serve the seriousness of this debate. When people already facing the end of life are told that reform will endanger society, weaken safeguards or target vulnerable groups, that rhetoric has consequences. It creates distress and can silence those who might otherwise speak openly about their wishes.
The Scottish Parliament has been entrusted with a life-changing decision and a chance to show once again how forward thinking they can be. Last week, Jersey’s parliament voted 32 to 16 to pass a law legalising assisted dying for mentally competent adults; Scotland should not shrink from the same responsibility and should have the courage to be brave too.
Above all, the voices of dying Scots must be listened to. Too often, this debate speaks about them rather than hearing from them. It concerns real people, real families and real suffering at the end of life.
The consequences of inaction are already being lived. The choice before the Scottish Parliament is whether to continue with a system that leaves some without options and is unregulated, or to create one that is transparent, safeguarded and fair.
Emma Cooper is convener of Friends at the End (FATE), and an experienced third sector leader.
Do you have an opinion on this? TFN is open to all views - email
Assisted dying in Scotland: let’s separate fear from fact - TFN
The above information is from a Third Force News (TFN) Your weekly summary of third sector events on TFN. Newsletter Wed 11/03/2026