Since the launch of the Assisted Suicide (Scotland) Bill in November 2013, the legal, medical, ethical and religious issues it raises have been pored over and widely debated.

Discussions have often been lively, yet generally conducted in a courteous and good-humoured manner.

Weighty and highly sensitive matters, including morality, doctor-patient relationships, palliative care, responsibilities towards others, personal autonomy and the influence of faith on decision making have all been explored in detail.

Although essential when it comes to informing the debate, it is easy to fall into the trap of regarding those relatively highfalutin, theoretical concepts as ends in themselves. We need to bear constantly in mind that the Bill has been deliberately crafted to bring help to desperately ill people throughout Scotland, real people, who are at present being compelled to endure unrelieved suffering near the end of their lives.

Elsewhere, laws concerning these matters are on the move. Right across the civilised world assisted dying, in one or other of its manifestations, is gaining traction. Countries including Switzerland, Belgium, the Netherlands, Luxembourg and Colombia, plus five states in the US; Oregon, Washington, Vermont, Montana and New Mexico now have laws which allow this and in February of this year, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled unanimously that the law banning assisted suicide was unconstitutional.

No legislature with the authority to enact such laws has ever subsequently repealed them. Following their introduction, despite dire predictions of disaster coming from those who are implacably opposed to change, civilisation has not crumbled.

Nor is there evidence that vulnerable groups are being discriminated against on account of their status in society. On the contrary, independent research carried out into practices in this regard in both Oregon and the Netherlands has shown no evidence of abuse of assisted suicide occurring amongst the elderly, women, the uninsured, the poor, ethnic minorities, the physically disabled, the long-term sick, those with low educational status, minors or people with psychiatric illness including depression.

This calls into question spurious claims that safeguards to protect those who are poorly equipped to look after themselves can never be adequate. Under scrutiny such scare stories wilt away.

So, is there really a requirement for a change in the law? Until recently, the focus of attention has been on a succession of high-profile cases which have come before the courts and it has been difficult to be sure how widespread the need might be.

However, a recent study into suicides in England which had investigated through the coroners court system, revealed 7 per cent of those who took their own lives had previously been diagnosed with a terminal illness.

Extrapolating that finding to Scotland, and there seems to be no good reason to conclude the situation is very different from that here north of the border, that equates to approximately 50 cases per annum. Or to put it another way, each week around one man or woman in Scotland who is terminally ill decides to bring their life to an end by whatever means available. Anecdotal evidence suggests that is quite likely to be violent.

Parliamentarians who sit on Holyrood's Health and Sport Committee have now finished examining the extensive written and oral evidence concerning the Bill and, after due deliberation, issued their report, which concluded they could offer no advice to colleagues on how to vote.

Each MSP will have to make up their own mind. In doing so, they would do well to reflect on the growing body of reliable evidence from here and overseas that such a measure is both urgently required as well as capable of operating safely.

Tomorrow, when Stage 1 of the Bill is debated in the Scottish Parliament, MSPs will have a wonderful opportunity of bringing the prospect of relief to a significant number of unfortunate individuals whose suffering remains unassuaged.

For the sake of those victims, and for the sake of countless others in the future, it is to be hoped a majority of our elected representatives will seize the moment and vote in favour of allowing the Bill to continue to the next stage of the parliamentary process.

Bob Scott is a retired GP and spokesman for the My Life My Death My Choice campaign.