Exclusive:Scottish assisted dying opponents 'scaremongering and spreading misinformation'

Opponents of assisted dying in Scotland and elsewhere are scaremongering and spreading misinformation, one of the key architects of the service in Western Australia has said.

Dr Clare Fellingham said it was "really disappointing" that politicians "aren't doing their homework in relation to these things". She said every counter argument has been debunked "multiple times in multiple places around the world". 

Dr Fellingham, a consultant anaesthetist at Royal Perth Hospital in Western Australia, was clinical lead for the implementation of voluntary assisted dying across her hospital network in 2021. Over the past three years, she has helped more than 100 terminally ill people end their lives.

She is due to speak at an event in Edinburgh next week in support of plans to legalise assisted dying in Scotland.

Dr Clare Fellingham | Picture: contributed

The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill is being brought forward by Liberal Democrat MSP Liam McArthur, and would allow terminally ill, mentally competent adults to end their lives. Similar legislation has been introduced in Westminster.

Speaking exclusively to The Scotsman, Dr Fellingham said this basic model had been “tried and tested” over decades in other jurisdictions around the world.

Referring to Western Australia, she said: "It is incredibly strictly governed and policed, and honestly the evidence that exists to disprove without question every single oppositional argument that I've heard to legalising it already exists in the public forum."

She added: “Every counter argument ... abuse of the vulnerable, abuse of the disabled, slippery slope, coercion, everything - they've all been debunked repeatedly by very, very learned people who have done all the groundwork. 

"And it's a very disappointing scenario that the naysayers and the opposers are continuing to peddle all of these arguments, all of which have actually been debunked multiple times in multiple places around the world."

Labour MSP Pam Duncan-Glancy, a permanent wheelchair user, has called the proposals "dangerous for disabled people". But Dr Fellingham said the law would only apply to the terminally ill and so this argument was “completely baseless”.

She referenced extensive research by experts at the Australian Centre for Health Law Research, which "categorically proves that there is nowhere in the world where the slippery slope has been proven to be something that happens".

She added: "It's fear and it's scaremongering and it's misunderstanding and misinformation, and it's really disappointing that MPs [or MSPs] in particular aren't doing their homework in relation to these things that are freely publicly available. Anyone can Google search them, to prove that every oppositional argument just has no grounding."

Dr Fellingham said the relationship between doctor and patient “does change in an assisted dying journey”, but this was “without question an invariably positive one”.

She said: “This is something that is so powerful and filled with so much meaning that it is actually the most rewarding thing I have ever done in my medical career.”

She said palliative care was “the most incredible speciality and can support the vast majority of people with severe physical symptoms and terrible emotional distress through their dying process to enable them to die well, but it can’t mitigate every person’s suffering”.

Dr Fellingham’s comments come as Catholic bishops have warned that compassion is “under threat” from assisted dying, which they fear could lead to people feeling “pressured” into ending their lives.

A statement from the Catholic Bishops of Scotland, England and Wales urged people “of reason and good will” to join them in defending “the weakest and most vulnerable” who they say are at risk from the legislation.

One of the most senior Catholic leaders in the UK separately suggested it would be “abhorrent” to exclude religious views from the assisted dying debate after Dame Esther Rantzen said she was deeply disappointed in his previous comments on the issue.

Dame Esther, the broadcaster and Childline founder who has stage four lung cancer, has been outspoken on assisted dying since revealing in December last year that she had joined Dignitas due to her fears over a drawn-out, painful death.

In a statement last month, she had expressed disappointment in the words of the Archbishop of Westminster, saying while he is guided by the faith he has chosen, “surely that does not mean he should impose his faith on those who do not share it”.

Asked about what he made of Dame Esther’s comments, Cardinal Vincent Nichols said it would be unacceptable to exclude the views of those who believe in God.

Speaking at a press conference on Friday for the Autumn plenary meeting of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales, Cardinal Nichols said: “The whole point of a democracy is that we share views, and I think we know that there are many voices of strong conviction in our society today, and all of them have a right to be heard.

“And that is absolutely true of the convictions that are based and drawn from faith and belief in God. To suggest that somehow belief in God is an excluder from public debate is actually abhorrent.

“Nobody should be excluded, and [if] those whose views are formed in a tradition that has shaped our civilization for over 2,000 years are suddenly cancelled, really it’s not acceptable.”

Dame Esther’s comments about Cardinal Nichols came after he voiced his opposition to a change in the law, saying suffering “is an intrinsic part of our human journey”.

In a letter that was to be read out in the churches of his diocese last month, Cardinal Nichols warned Catholics to “be careful what you wish for”.

Responding to what he said on Friday, Dame Esther said: “Of course the Cardinal is entitled to express his views based on his faith. But to write a letter to be read out from the pulpit in every Catholic Church instructing Catholics to lobby their MPs to oppose the Bill seems to me to be a political campaign rather than an expression of religious principles.

“And of course many people who are not Catholics will be affected by the denial of their personal choice if the new Bill is defeated.”