Scottish lawmakers eye assisted suicide legalization, but a proposed amendment could jail those urging patients to choose life near clinics—sparking free speech alarms.
ewsroom (06/11/2025, Gaudium Press ) As Scotland’s parliament weighs legalizing assisted suicide for terminally ill adults, a controversial amendment threatens to silence voices of hope, potentially criminalizing family pleas or even a doctor’s suicide-prevention sign.
The Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, currently under debate, would permit mentally competent individuals over 16 with a terminal illness to end their lives—no fixed prognosis required. But Patrick Harvie, a Green Party MSP and Health Committee member, has tabled an amendment establishing “safe zones” around assisted dying clinics.
Under the proposal, anyone influencing another’s decision to pursue assisted suicide, or impeding its provision, could face criminal charges. The term “influencing the decision” remains undefined, leaving broad latitude for enforcement.
Critics warn this could stifle vital conversations. “It’s unthinkable that Scots should be banned on certain streets from offering hope and encouraging someone to choose life, not suicide,” said Lois McLatchie Miller, senior legal communications officer at ADF International, a nonprofit defending free speech and the right to life.
Miller highlighted risks to intimate dialogues: an adult child convincing an elderly parent they’re not a burden, or a clinic displaying anti-suicide resources. “Once a buffer zone is approved for one issue, it can easily multiply to more,” she added, invoking the “slippery slope” of censorship.
The proposal echoes recent UK precedents. In August, a 75-year-old Scottish woman was arrested for silently offering support outside an abortion clinic, under similar buffer zone laws that have led to multiple prosecutions for peaceful vigils.
Harvie’s office did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Supporters argue the zones protect vulnerable patients from coercion, but opponents, including faith-based groups, decry it as an overreach on conscience and expression.
The bill’s fate—and the amendment’s—hangs in the balance as debates intensify, pitting compassion for the dying against safeguards for speech and life.
- Raju Hasmukh with files from Aeletia
Related Images:
