Pro-life and free speech advocates are concerned over a Scottish parliamentarian’s proposed amendment to Scotland’s “assisted suicide” bill that would criminalize discussion of suicide prevention near buildings where assisted suicides might take place.
According to an Oct. 29 press release from ADF International, Health Committee member and parliamentarian Patrick Harvie MSP proposed the amendment — described by ADF as a “vague proposal” — that would criminalize discussing suicide prevention in public spaces “surrounding any building where an assisted suicide might take place.”
The amendment would criminalize “influencing” another person — whether through a suicide prevention poster display or conversation with a family member — from changing their mind on undergoing an assisted suicide, according to ADF.
“It’s unthinkable that Scots should be banned on certain streets from offering hope and encouraging someone to choose life, not suicide,” Lois McLatchie Miller, ADF International’s senior legal communications officer, stated in the release.
“How will this impact a doctor’s choice to have a suicide-prevention charity’s poster in their window?” Miller added. “How will this impact important conversations between loved ones, eager to convince an elderly wife or a parent that they are not a burden, but a valuable member of the family?”
Assisted suicide is not yet legal in Scotland, but lawmakers are preparing for another vote on the issue, according to an Oct. 7 LiveAction report. In May, the Scottish parliament voted in favor of the bill, advancing the “Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill” toward the committee stage where amendments can be added ahead of a final vote, Reuters reported.
Harvie’s proposed amendment to the bill resembles the “buffer zone” law enacted in Scotland in 2024 that criminalizes pro-life speech within 200 meters of hospitals that commit abortions, ADF’s press release added. Since then, at least one person has been arrested for offering, within the buffer zone, to have conversations with women considering abortions.
“Once the principle of a censorial ‘buffer zone’ is approved for one issue, it can easily multiply to more and more issues,” Miller said in the release. “We’ve already seen loosely worded abortion ‘buffer zone’ rules be used to arrest a grandmother simply for offering to chat. Now the government seeks to apply the same vague, broad rules to ban speech about assisted suicide.”
“What could be next?” Miller asked. “Banning parents from ‘influencing’ their child outside a gender clinic? Banning dissenting speech about foreign regimes around certain embassies? Censorship is always a slippery slope.”