This is a vote that weighs heavily on me. But the gaps, risks and potential for coercion in Scotland’s assisted dying bill leave me unable to back it, says Audrey Nicoll.

On Tuesday, the Scottish Parliament will vote on the most significant piece of legislation of the last five years, if not longer.

As an MSP, the enormity of the proposal to legalise assisted dying weighs on me hugely.

It is quite literally a matter of life and death.

I know other colleagues feel equally struck by the sheer scale of what we are about to adjudicate upon.

200 health care professionals urge MSPs to reject assisted dying bill

Legalising assisted dying is 'overwhelming will' of Scots, new poll suggests

Threat to 'human dignity': Senior Christian leaders unite against assisted dying bill

Catholics support my bill: Liam McArthur hits back at bishops over assisted dying

I began the process opposed to assisted dying as a matter of principle, but supportive of the parliament fully scrutinising the bill and its consequences.

Since then, my position has not shifted, indeed I am deeply concerned about how the bill would work in practice.

It has reached the point where, even if you supported the principles of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, there are gaps throughout – legally, financially, ethically – making it impossible to support.

I absolutely recognise some MSP colleagues who are on the fence want to hear the positive reasons for resisting assisting dying laws.

And I believe there is a way to say no to assisted dying, but yes to something more fitting to society’s needs at end of life.

This week a collection of Scottish disabled charities – such as Inclusion Scotland and the Glasgow Disability Alliance – said politicians should be seeking to improve the lives of disabled people “rather than to end them”.

SNP MSP Audrey Nicoll (Image: Ken Jack)

We should use the moments of these vital debates to talk about how to enhance and improve palliative care, reduce vulnerability and ensure health and social care is accessible to everyone.

These organisations – who represent thousands of disabled people across the country – don’t want MSPs to put our energies in helping people to die.

They want us to focus on improving the lives they already have, and that is something that has been overlooked for far too long

The issue of coercion has also emerged.

How can those in favour of the bill really ensure vulnerable people will not be pushed into taking their own lives?

This comes in many forms, and I know from 30 years as a police officer exactly how what the most subtle coercion looks like, and the grave consequences it has.

In the most sinister examples, it has been repeatedly warned that controlling and coercive individuals would take advantage of this law to force people into thinking their lives are not worth living.

We know the scale of domestic abuse in Scotland, which is perhaps one of the most shameful reflections on our society.

And we know that domestic abuse involves coercing individuals, perpetrating the most abusive behaviour on partners or ex-partners, who are almost always women. I remain to be persuaded that perpetrators would not use their power and control over a person in the context of assisted dying.

If such people are prepared to assault, harass and beat such victims to within an inch of their lives, it is obvious that they would seek to use assisted dying to go a step further.

I am glad the issue of coercion is being recognised now, here in Scotland, especially when other countries which have introduced assisted dying have brushed these risks aside.

It places us in a unique position as a country which recognises the risk of coercion across the board, and can introduce a range of measures and resources to counter it, from education to justice policies.

With the introduction of coercion clauses into domestic abuse laws, we already showed we are ahead of the curve.

Disabled people are also concerned about a more subtle level of coercion; that of society feeling they are a burden.

Again, we know they feel this way because we have been told at scale that this is the case by those who know best.

In a moving piece earlier this month, my MSP colleague Jeremy Balfour – who himself has significant physical disabilities – spoke of this.

He does not support the bill, and realises that when he gets older, he himself may feel like a burden to his family.

And, on a bad day, may even feel pushed into using this legislation were it available.

This is someone who has a magnificent family support network around him, and has a high-functioning professional job.

If even he is feeling that way, you can imagine how thousands in a more vulnerable place than he could be interpreting these changes.

This bill has been debated in Scotland in one shape or form over many years.

But next week, it really does come to the crunch.

I would urge those – even if they are sympathetic to the principles behind it – to really think of the ramifications if this passes.

There are good reasons why so many medical professionals, charities, professional bodies and experts are vehemently opposed.

It is unsafe, unworkable, and could have the most catastrophic of consequences for thousands of vulnerable Scots.

Audrey Nicoll is the SNP MSP for Aberdeen South and North Kincardine

© Herald Scotland