RPS opposes Scottish assisted dying bill after protections for pharmacists removed

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society has expressed concern that the final draft of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill removes a “conscience clause”, which would protect pharmacists who choose not to participate in assisted dying.
An older person with an IV holds a loved one's hand

The Royal Pharmaceutical Society (RPS) in Scotland has stated its opposition to the final draft of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill, from which it says “vital protections” have been removed to protect pharmacists who do not want to participate in assisted dying.

In a statement published on 13 March 2026, the Society — which is neutral on the principle of assisted dying — said it has “strongly advocated for the rights of pharmacists who may, or may not, wish to take part in assisted dying” since the introduction of the Bill in March 2024.

However, the RPS added: “The final Bill, which will be voted on 17 March [2026], will not contain vital protections for pharmacists, and other healthcare professionals, who may wish to conscientiously object to taking part in the assisted dying process.

“This is despite [the] RPS tabling robust amendments at both stage two and stage three of the process which, had MSPs voted for them, would have provided these vital protections.”

Among the Society’s concerns is the removal, in the final Bill, of section 18. This, which had been referred to as a “conscience clause”, would have provided statutory protections for pharmacists and other clinicians who chose not to participate in assisted dying.

The removal of this section was over concerns that it would be outside the remit of Scotland’s devolved powers because only the UK government has the power to legislate on the regulation of healthcare professionals.

Should the bill pass, a section 104 order could be implemented that would allow the Scottish government to make its own provisions around conscientious objection.

However, together with some other royal colleges and professional bodies, the RPS said this would be “inadequate and inappropriate”.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists in Scotland has also now moved to oppose the bill following the removal of section 18.

The RPS is also concerned that “section 15 (1A), which would have ensured that a registered pharmacist supplied the substance for use in the process, was removed from the bill at stage three”.

“This removes an extremely important safeguard on the supply of the substance, and the bill is now silent on this critical process,” it added.

The final vote on the bill takes place on 17 March 2026.

The RPS said that it would “encourage MSPs to carefully consider this statement ahead of the final vote”.

In September 2025, the results of a survey conducted by The Pharmaceutical Journal revealed that just over half (54%, n=408) of pharmacists supported assisted dying in principle.

Read more: ‘Special report: pharmacists views on assisted dying

Last updated
Citation
The Pharmaceutical Journal, PJ March 2026, Vol 317, No 8007;317(8007)::DOI:10.1211/PJ.2026.1.403790

    Please leave a comment 

    You may also be interested in