Stephen Kerr is Conservative Member of Scottish Parliament for Central Scotland and former Member of Parliament for Stirling (2017-2019
I voted against the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill at Stage 1.
I did so, not just because I remain fundamentally opposed to the principle of assisted dying, but because I have deep misgivings about the drafting and effect of this particular Bill.
Of course, once a Bill passes its first parliamentary test, we as MSPs are duty-bound to scrutinise it seriously, consider whether it can conceivably be workable as legislation and, where necessary, seek to improve it wherever possible. That duty remains, even amid disagreement and with a narrow margin of support at Stage 1. It is how legislatures work – and how laws are either improved or, where necessary, stopped.
The Bill’s safe passage through its remaining stages is far from guaranteed. The Stage 1 vote was close, and many MSPs supported it with clear reservations. That should not be mistaken for consensus. It should be taken as a call for deeper examination.
It is one thing to talk about assisted dying in abstract terms: rights, autonomy, control. But it is a different venture entirely when the wider context in which this law would operate is considered. This Bill is not abstract. It is real. And real people will be affected.
Take Peter Sefton-Williams.
Peter was wrongly diagnosed with motor neurone disease and told he could have as little as six months to live. Terrified by the prospect of losing the ability to move, swallow, or speak, he filled out the paperwork for Dignitas. He even visited a known suicide spot on the Sussex coast as a backup plan. He was convinced his fate had been sealed. But when his symptoms did not worsen, doctors ran further tests and discovered he had a different, far less severe condition: multifocal motor neuropathy. Peter survived. But as he later said, if he had insisted on ending his life, people would have said he made a dignified choice, on his own terms. The truth is, he would have died needlessly, based on a mistake. “I would have killed myself,” he said, “and nobody would have known that in fact I wasn’t ill at all.”
Peter’s case highlights how devastating the consequences of error can be – and why rushed or superficial scrutiny is unacceptable.
At Stage 1, many of the Bill’s supporters made the case: vote now, fix later.
Their argument was that Parliament should support the Bill in principle, with the understanding that concerns would be addressed during Stages 2 and 3. But that promise only holds if those later stages are given the time and seriousness they demand. Every amendment must be properly debated. Every MSP, regardless of how they voted at Stage 1, must be given the chance to fully engage.
This cannot be a box-ticking exercise.
The burden now is to ensure that scrutiny is real, the timetable is sufficient, and no concern is brushed aside.
We have already seen what happens when that process breaks down. In Westminster, the Leadbeater Bill was also sold with promises: that scrutiny would come in Committee and that improvements would follow. But the Bill emerged from Committee weaker than when it was considered at Second Reading by all MPs, with the lauded High Court Judge safeguard removed entirely, and when all MPs had the chance to consider it again at Report Stage, over 60 amendments were tabled, but most were not debated. Many MPs never had the chance to speak on their own proposals.
It was a failure of process that undermined the legitimacy of the debate.
We must not repeat that mistake in Scotland. Holyrood has the opportunity to do better.
As legislators, we bear the responsibility for ensuring this happens. That means giving this Bill the parliamentary timetable it deserves. No rushing. Just careful, serious consideration: clause by clause, amendment by amendment.
I will continue to raise concerns not just about the details of this Bill, but about the core idea it represents.
Assisted dying is often framed as a matter of choice, but in reality, it introduces risks we cannot fully control: misdiagnosis, subtle coercion, shifting interpretations and the quiet, cultural pressure placed on those who feel they have become a burden.
No safeguard can account for all of this. Irreversible mistakes will be made and cannot be mitigated against. If there is a risk that even one person dies who might otherwise not have done with the current prohibition on assisted dying remaining in place, that is one innocent, vulnerable person too many.
As Parliament continues its work, I hope MSPs keep this at the forefront: not just whether this Bill can be made better, but whether the very premise it rests on is truly safe at all.
Because once the door is opened, even with the best of intentions, it cannot be closed again.
