By Tom Martin
An independent watchdog should oversee assisted dying if MSPs press ahead with new laws, the head of the Scottish Police Federation has said.
General secretary David Kennedy called for a commissioner-style role to keep the process “watertight” and allow concerns to be raised without involving over-stretched police officers.
Last month, MSPs backed the principles of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill by 70 votes to 56, clearing its first parliamentary hurdle.
The bill, proposed by Scottish Lib Dem MSP Liam McArthur, will now face detailed scrutiny with amendments expected after summer.
Kennedy told 1919: “You really have to have a robust process and clear policies to make sure it doesn’t just land at the police’s door. It shouldn’t come to the police unless there’s evidence something has gone wrong.”
Current proposed safeguards include independent assessments by two doctors and a 14-day cooling-off period.
But critics fear this will not do enough to protect vulnerable people, particularly those with disabilities who could feel pressured.
SPF general secretary David Kennedy
McArthur told 1919 his bill is “robustly safeguarded” and said doctors found strict time limits “problematic.” However, he is open to changes and has already agreed to raise the age limit from 16 to 18.
Kennedy, in the SPF’s first public comments on the bill, raised concerns about the impact on officers and said a watchdog should handle complaints unless there is evidence of criminality.
He said: “You have to leave no room for error.
“You can imagine the allegations that might follow when someone’s will is read. Someone could claim it was wrong or that a person had been coerced. That’s why it has to be watertight.”
He added: “There has to be someone independent people can go to if there’s an issue. Somewhere to appeal and say, ‘I don’t think this is right, can someone look at this?’ But that shouldn’t be a policing matter.
“It would be similar to having a commissioner, someone to check things before they go any further.
“It shouldn’t involve the police because it has nothing to do with policing. This is about a process. It’s medicine, and the oversight should involve medics or someone independent who can confirm the correct steps were followed.”
Earlier this year, the Crown Office told Holyrood’s health committee it expected assisted deaths to be reported to procurator fiscals, in line with how sudden or unexplained deaths are handled.
Andy Shanks, head of the Scottish fatalities investigation unit, said there is already “independent scrutiny” when asked if a new review panel would be needed.
He told the committee: “Deaths are already investigated independently by the COPFS [Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service] on behalf of the Lord Advocate, which brings that degree of independent scrutiny to the circumstances of the death.
“That is not only done in relation to potential criminality but also for wider death investigation purposes, to see whether there are systemic issues or public concerns that require further investigation.”
In a written submission, Police Scotland raised concerns about the bill’s broad definition of “terminally ill” and unclear rules around administering life-ending substances.
The force questioned whether the person must self-administer, how doctors could be sure if not present, and who else would be allowed in the room.
Two previous attempts to change the law in Scotland were defeated at the first hurdle.
McArthur said he drew on the experience of more than 30 countries to draw up strong safeguards and said medical experts told the health committee setting a strict time limit on a terminal diagnosis was “problematic”.
He added: “If there are further refinements to definitions that might help allay concerns, I am open to exploring these and other potential amendments with MSP colleagues.
“Ultimately, however, I believe my bill is robustly safeguarded, drawing on international evidence of how such laws work in practice.
“Indeed, it puts in place safeguards that don’t currently exist, leaving some dying Scots more vulnerable. That is not acceptable and we can and must do better.”