Doctors for Assisted Suicide (DAS) is an informal group of practising and retired Scottish doctors who support the Assisted Suicide Bill that is being considered by the Scottish Parliament.
There is a sense amongst MSPs that all doctors are opposed to the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill but this is not the case.
Arguments against the legislation have included warnings that vulnerable groups could suffer. None of us who support the Bill wants this to happen.
In fact, one of the principal aims of the Bill as expressed in the Policy Memorandum is "to protect vulnerable people against abuse".
A detailed analysis in a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics examined data from Oregon and the Netherlands, two jurisdictions where similar legislation has been enacted, and extensive data has been collected on its workings.
It deals with a number of vulnerable groups in turn. First, older people: in Oregon, 10 per cent of patients who died under the provisions of the Dying with Dignity Act (DDA) were 85 years or older, compared to 21 per cent of all deaths in Oregon in this age category.
In the Netherlands, rates of assisted dying were actually lowest in people over 80 (only 0.8 per cent in 2005) and second lowest among 65 to74-year-olds (2.1 per cent).
As a result, the researchers concluded that there was "no evidence of heightened risk" to the elderly in either jurisdiction.
The paper also examined those with non-terminal physical abilities, or chronic non-terminal illness. In Oregon, physicians estimated that only 0.2 per cent of patients receiving assistance in suicide had more than six months to live, leading them to conclude there was " ... no evidence that assisted dying poses heightened risk to people with disabilities ... "
A further group often deemed to be vulnerable are those psychiatric illnesses, including depression and Alzheimer's disease.
Again, the report found that, in Oregon, "none of the 292 patients who died under [the Act] were determined to have a mental illness influencing their decision" and that there was no evidence of heightened risk.
Other groups analysed in the same way included women; people with low educational status; the poor; and racial and ethnic minorities.
In all of these cases, the researchers found "no heightened risk" as a result of assisted suicide legislation.
The records that are collected in Oregon as part of the DDA are essential to ensure transparency which, similar to legislation such as the Freedom of Information Act, help hold governments and public servants to account.
For example, the most recent figures show that the three most frequently mentioned end-of-life concerns were "loss of autonomy, decreasing ability to participate in activities that made life enjoyable and loss of dignity".
There has also been a suggestion that allowing assisted suicide is a threat to the excellent palliative care available in Scotland.
Doctors for Assisted Suicide wholeheartedly support the further development and geographical spread of palliative care, but cannot see why the proposed legislation should make this less likely.
Indeed, with more openness on the options for dying, it should make palliative care more visible, more available and, as a consequence, better.
Furthermore, assisted suicide will help reduce any taboo about discussing with patients how they want to die. This would lead to improvements in care.
It is of critical importance that the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill is passed to help alleviate the suffering of those few patients for whom the excellent palliative care available in this country is unable to help.
It is equally important that the final Act contains robust safeguards to protect the most vulnerable in society. The evidence from both Oregon and the Netherlands suggests this balance can be found.
We should be working together to ensure this is achieved in Scotland.
Dr Charles Warlow is chairman of Doctors for Assisted Suicide.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article