Apologies for all the technical problems that you could possibly have at a conference or at a monthly. My name is Jenny, I talk really fast, I'm really sorry, but we only have probably less than 30 minutes now, so my slides are usually self-explanatory anyway, but if you do need me to repeat something, just put your hand up and tell me to slow down and repeat it. I will not take offense to it because I'm very used to it. And plus I know I'm in Europe, so sometimes people don't want to see my accent, so that's absolutely okay, put your hand up and I will try and slow down. Okay, so actually I am a community addict, self-confessing community addict. I have been going to conferences since I was a student and basically like the open source community helped me pass my dissertation, pass my degree, I got a job, so I have a lot of senior open source community and therefore I feel like, you know, when there's a great support network, you kind of come back for more support, so this is why I'm a community addict. And we, in the community, in the especially open source community, we have offline and online communities, and this in terms of different, well also this in terms of exactly the same, because you know, the same type of people are in both those places. Today I'm going to be talking to you all about building an offline community in particular, because that's where I start from today, but many of the things I'm going to talk about is also applies to online communities as well, you just need to think about how would this translate to an online community, and most of the time you can go to me to figure it out, if you're not sure, I won't go out until the day. So this story is about an event that I have the honour of being a lead organizer for last year, work at London 2016. It's a word press event, happens in London, and now it's no secret that in tech communities especially, we talk a lot about diversity, and there's been a lot of movement in the events, in the open source community especially, to encourage diversity in our events. And as an organizer of events, and an attendee and a speaker who goes to a lot of events, I've seen many different ways of tackling diversity in particular. So as a lead organizer of work at London last year, we tackled it another differently, we didn't look at diversity, but I didn't want the word diversity to be anywhere in the way we thought. Instead, I wanted to focus on inclusivity. My idea was, if we make the most inclusive event possible, then diversity should kind of fit itself. And you know what we do as an organizer, we're just like, well, because it's my time to check this theory. So I'm going to share with you today what we did and how it went as well. But first and first, if you're going to do anything in a group, generally it's a good idea to have organizers buy in. So is it one camps that are organized by a team of volunteers, I was not the only person on that team. Thankfully, because it's far too much work, there was another seven people that I had to get buying from. And so I actually asked all my co-organizers to have buy in with this mentality, with this vision of creating an inclusive event. And so after I got buy in, the question is, how do you make a community inclusive? And the answer is that was accessibility. Accessibility is a problem. No, back to the beginning. So, how do you make a community inclusive? And the answer to that is put accessibility at the core. So when you put accessibility at the core, it's really the answer to everything. You ask yourself, will this make the event more accessible to people? And what I learned was that the budget that you have as a conflict organizer or the size of the event doesn't matter. There's different ways to make a community accessible to more people. So I'm going to go through the 11 different points of today. And I'm going to start off with context. The first thing as an attendee that you see about an event is the context. It's the wording. So at Workout London in 2016, we did a big push to have gender neutral programs everywhere. Regardless of what people submitted, we went and changed everything. Because ultimately, we didn't care about the sex of a person. We didn't care about the gender of a person. We also changed the tone of voice. If we want nice people, be a nice person online, and hopefully they'll turn up. Because, like the traffic light, apparently. So we were really careful about the way we described things and made sure that what we said really meant what we wanted. We also had to realize quickly that different accessibility terms mean different things. So hard of hearing is different to deaf. For someone who isn't hard of hearing, I didn't know they're different. And so I was using things interchangeably. And it's not someone else to point this out and say, no, you're using a word in one. And so it's very, you need to do your homework in terms of the actual words you're choosing to use. Depending on the language that you're from, these rules might be a little different. They say that one image is about a word. So when we picked imagery for our event, we were carefully selecting what kind of event we wanted to show to try and tie the same event to become a real thing. And it's kind of a thing that's quite hard to do at the beginning because you have to be proactively finding imagery from your old events to then be the images that we want for the next year. So it was actually hard for the first year. But we do have some photographers who go around the event and take photos. So we asked them if there could be an x particular time of photos for the next year as well. But we proved right everything. Our next in 2017, our edition this year will not be as good as last year. But I'm hoping to rectify that as soon as it's over. But we proved right everything. We made sure that we were able to really stay in contact to make sure that things weren't misrepresented on paper or on screen rather. And that was really good. Our team was like this, so different people had different language skills in different languages. So adding it now, for example, the word Cooley's is in the US and in the UK as well. So nothing's like that. Catch you out if you're trying to encourage more people. The other thing is childcare. The cost for childcare last year was $3,340,000, which is a lot of money. It started off with this particular tweet asking us if we had any plans for childcare. And my response to Joe was basically if you join the organiser team, they will be. I'll give you the money for it. So she did. It's a nice way to get organisers if you want to know. Basically they want something, they can sort it out themselves. But there's a lot of things about childcare, especially in the UK. There's a lot of legal issues that come with looking at the children that are not your own in particular. So you have to be really careful. So my ticks to you, including don't do it yourself, do not be responsible for other people's children, because parents are the most protective people I've ever met. In my life, five professionals are more important than that, the professionals. Just because they say they're professionals doesn't mean that they are. So if your country has different kinds of documentation and different reports and stuff that they're meant to have and if they still get, make sure you see them and vet them. Even better, have a parent talk to them. We actually did a face-to-face meeting with the crash at the university where we're holding the venue with some parents that were on our organiser team to ensure that parents' instincts are being met, because parents know that they have children. You have these instincts, so you use them. Make sure you meet them in person. And also get testimonies and follow through of it. It's one thing to say, yeah, they're great. It's another thing to phone up the testimonial. Did you really mean this? So go that extra mile, because having people's lives in your hands is one of the scariest things you'll do as an organiser. So it's the one thing that you want to make sure you're looking after. One thing we do at the event was to encourage attendees to check it out. I always need, I wanted to make a crash a standard at Workout London because of the size of the event. But to encourage more people to use it, they need to know what they're buying into. So I encouraged parents to go and see the crash. Last year we only had one child in the crash. But $2,300 quid, that was one kid.  But they had a great time. So it was totally worth it. We also had parents coming in and checking the place out and saying, now that I know who is dealing with the crash and they look legit, I'm going to use them. And it's a good thing to say, at the end of the event I actually announced, because I was so impressed with the team, we were definitely going to bring the same team back. I saw those folded vetting checks were firing for this year as well. Luckily they are, so they are coming back to our van this year. And we already had two kids sign up, which is better than the one kid. So I feel like I'm already gone. At least the class is pretty powerful, although they are siblings. But it's super cool to see that the father and the mother can go to the event. And this is important when we're trying to be accessible and be more diverse. Half the people that we know probably look after someone. In age, there's so many different reasons that people are looking after other people. So try and be considerate of that as much as you can. Face planning. The cost of face planning is free, because obviously if you're going to rent an event, then you've got the space. And if you're on the internet, you create the space. So really the cost of face planning is free. Some of the most obvious things when you're doing events is to think about wheelchair access and how easy it is for a wheelchair to get around. This room is not exactly great, but we'll just slide over that. I was also thinking about in the UK, hearing aids. In most locations in the UK, although in the UK some of them are top notch only, hearing aids are usually in particular locations, especially event locations. And especially given to a university, they're usually all hooked up. Because it's just a legal requirement. So that usually ticks yourself off. But if you don't have one, then check. The location that you've picked for your event doesn't have a hearing aid. Just read old films about it. People like to know, because they can keep being bad on what you don't have as much as what you do have. We also had multi-favourites, which was great. We actually listed the different types of re-examines that were there. We also had a lactation ring for people who were expressing milk. We also had a quiet ring, which is one of my most favourite rings of the whole type of event. Because it's an organiser when you don't want to talk to him. Everyone, this is your favourite room. I went to PyCon UK and Django UK the last two years. And they had a quiet ring in Cardiff. And it was the best thing ever.  It's amazing. And you just go there and you take five and we see each other.  It's the best thing ever! There are props to the PyCon community. There is more on PyCon than here. But yes, green rings. As a speaker, some of you saw me outside pacing quite rigorously because my drone was going. It still is going. But really, it was a great place as a speaker to go with the free cab in private. So that no-one else sees it and laughs at you. So if you have to play some green rings, it's always great. Your speakers just go and check the slide. Make sure you have a doctor, a freak out, in private. So we have a green room as well.  There's some work emergency and you just need quite a space where you can have a phone call and deal with a work issue. Or maybe a team of you can deal with something together. We have a room specifically for that. So when people have a freak out call, they have a space where they can go and do things and get it done as quickly as possible. Without interfering with other people or other people saying, hey, what are you doing? I'm getting really interested in the fact that you're trying to fix a hat website. We also have a media room, which I only like two people use. So it's not really great for the size of a bag, but it was cool. Like, if people wanted to do podcasts, there was a space for them. And it's all about creating spaces for the people that you're expecting. We also have lots of breakout spaces. We have large pour-way tracks, which we designed with chairs and TVs to break out the spaces and change the way people felt. So even though it was a 600 person event, you mostly feel like a 200 event because everything was so spread out and scattered. That way, you just have a big event that will have a small local feel as well. And that's important. Creating that feel is really important. There's also own flow areas because sometimes you just can't predict what people are going to do. For example, this track has been crazy this year all day. There's been people outside. And we're not wondering what to do. We actually feed out the TVs outside the room with the video camera, so outside they actually can see what's going on inside and they have speakers so they can hear. Which is going to hand you. Yes, signage. I didn't realise printing was really expensive, but this is what happens when you print everything 48 hours before you're done. Go, go, go. And then when you print it inside it's only two of everything because it's not as helpful. It was not. Signage is really, really important. And maybe not for the reasons that you realise. I mean, it's signage that you get from A to B, but also it creates an atmosphere. So for example, in this room here, the ceiling is actually super tall. But what we did was we put printing at the top to make a more relaxed and harmless atmosphere by learning the ceiling. Otherwise, you just have that like an empty, great big hole that goes in the lift hole. Signage is also really important because it allows self support for people with neurodiversity. Something I learned in one of my many travels was that people with neurodiversity don't like asking questions and talking to other people, but they do want to be self-sufficient. So signage allows those people to be self-sufficient. Now, you'll always need more signage than you think. Basically, you can't see a signage you get somewhere and you imagine you have two second memory loss. Basically, your signage should be able to deal with that. Make sure you brand them, especially when you're in a co-ordinary location, like a university. Make them write an eye-catching so it's very quick for your eye to just quickly look and know where to go like the exit sign over there. Proceed. So if we didn't do actually what we should, we're hoping to do this year, is use a really friendly font and this helps with people with dyslexia and other type of emergencies. It just makes it easier. So something like all capitals is like some people hate, some people don't. And always make them fear that you realize because there's a lot of others and there's one piece of signage. And most importantly, because I'm five but two, have them above head height. Because especially if you're in, I don't know, let's say they're the ones where everyone's six foot by standard and I'm five foot two, I can't see anything at the six foot level because everyone else is in the way. So you've got to put them high up as high as you can. So when you're far away, you still see that signage. Signage always takes more time to put up than you realize. And also be careful on your venue because some sticky things they don't line and then they end up getting paid, like it was for like paperwork. That's not cool. But one opportunity that I have been doing for the last year is pre-organizing the signage the day before so that you're ready for signage straight away and they're all in the correct order and they're all in the correct locations. So even if you just put the sticky pads in the back of it, just make it that much faster on the day. Brings out a black branded signage because you always buy somewhere which could do an extra sign so you can just quickly wipe one up. But when you're going to write something up and you need it to be big and bold, use a chisel-tipped marker pen otherwise you'll be stuck there for hours. And also volunteer seizure is the signage. I feel like anyone who forgets about the service seizure, volunteer seizures are a must but you know who's taught you who to ask. Because I realize this clock thing is completely wrong. It's saying twenty nine hours so I don't mind. So schedule it.  Scheduling is really important. Ask turn-over time so people know how long they've got to get from A to B. Real changes and like me, basically I've written an event for myself. I have a review of apple injury after being drunk in Singapore for conference so I can't really walk fully on my left leg and when it's applied up, my apple injury means that it takes me five minutes, basically thirty minutes. So injury is actually and not always obvious so please think about that when you're looking at your turn-over time. Also if you have an event where people bring their children, it takes time to get children from A to B so it helps them as well. Plus it's nice to have a breather and an air delivery as we all are feeling right now. The other thing is having a backup house lunch for all your sponsors and all your volunteers before they've manic all your attendee's turn-over lunch time. Have a time that's actually going to allocate it for them so they can if they're free go and get a lunch ahead of the queue which is nice. And have it before and after the main lunch. So what I've also learnt and what I'm going to do this year for the part of the community is shift lunching. So what they did was on every attendee's badge have an A and B on it and so A went 45 minutes at the beginning and then B went up 45 minutes after and it was amazing so we're still in that shift. Those are the live gashes which I have also learnt from the band of community. Honestly they've got so many cool names. Live Gashling is actually one of the most expensive accessibility things we did at £5,218, it's actually more expensive this year. And it's really cool, there are dinner wrappers, STTRs, a light short handbag. At the beginning I thought it was really cool because it was useful for hard of hearing people. But then I realised it's also super handy for people with accents which like to say in Europe is a lot of accents. So having someone where you can read the subtitles of the accent is super handy. There are some extra A and B considerations because you need to have the actual thing going underneath but if you talk to your A and B team they usually help you. Something that has been asked and Budget Penning will do is have what they call a comforter at the beginning of the screen in front of the speaker. So that the speaker when someone asks a question they can read the question which is super handy too. And what I didn't realise is because I thought they were just always built in because we went these things separately from our own companies and they're not too expensive. So it's definitely worth thinking about if you're doing an event. Bathrooms. Now I'll explain why in a second. Now a lot of times in tech and we talk about diversity, we talk about de-genting toilets. But at Workhouse London we did not do de-genting toilets because you have to be aware of the local laws on public safety and bathrooms and the location and venue. So don't just go and do something. Make sure your religion or legal rights are lit before you go and do something. Especially with stores. Now in a store in the UK where there's a space of 4-1 below the door. Forget it. You're not going to get it anywhere past everyone else. But if it's complete in case of room where it doesn't have this space of 4-1 below then you should get away with it. But talk to the manager. Okay, so the manager will be the only space in the event. So I'll tell you about managers. Like essential boxes. This is the 50 quid. When you have these in every room there's a lot of wear in this room and a lot of look in this room. And then pretty sure they probably go to an event where they just were on the wrong schedule and they just don't know what to do. These things are, God so terrible. Have everyone open and put in a personal note because people are more likely to use it. Have different tampons and towel sizes and different sizes. It's super useful. And also remember, which I didn't realise, have extras to refill. It was so much fun sending people out to buy more. This year we're going to put it all back in. Because someone pointed out to me last time I did this talk, that it's not just women who need these boxes and it's totally true. So we're going to put them in all buffets this year, which means the cost is from 50 to about 100. But it's totally worth it. Tickets. Now you can do a lot of your tickets. How much time do I have? The Irish would require this because it just makes it easier for the catering people to actually know and improve their catering before. And actually you're going to ask as many questions as you want because it's the internet, you need to take as much space as you want. I bring up what we do. We actually put a tick box that makes people aware that SWAD isn't always guaranteed that hour of end. Which means that when we go out on the budget, we're covered, which is kind of awesome. Asking if anyone needs sign language, a usual ticketing system to find out what kind of attendees you're going to need. Also don't ask if people require child care and phone packs for the crash. And any other requirements. So I have someone who had a carer. I didn't know this, but she added this into her thing, child carer. So she wasn't sure if she needed to buy a carer ticket and we just gave the carer a ticket. Kind of nice, right? You should open your maps as a way to deal with the different culture clashes that happen at events. This is one of my favourite pictures. One because it says show someone speaking and I'm sure we're opening that room where there's two people at the back having a matter and it's just really annoying. It's like a being in your ear. So usually you open your maps and then it's always bringing different cultures together like Swazda. So usually, I don't know if I should set the tone. It also empowers your organisers and volunteers to follow your lead and enforce what you expect of people. Also use the turnover. I'll work on it in 20 minutes to remind people of the kind of politeness that you expect from people. For example, whilst there are lots of people to think about themselves, they can put that on the turner and the slides and people just get reminded of it. Speakers. This is super important to me because it means that people can say what they want to hear and it means that as a speaker submitting you can pick and create talks that are actually where people are interested in. Outreach to other communities in your local area have applied to speak sessions with organisers so that people can jump on with their hangouts and talk to you directly. We encourage speakers. We have one-on-one from these speakers and group mentors for people who are already speaking. So that way everyone has some kind of fear and we can help them with that. I feel like the more we help people the more we get new people to join in and the more diverse our speakers are. We encourage people to sign up as mentors because that way it's less possible for me to go and sign people and we also, beforehand, have a virtual room and I already mentioned a physical room and we have dedicated speakers to organisers so you don't annoy me or anyone else which is handy. We also have a serious information path because it's really, really handy having one PDF or one email that has all the information of where you need to be, when you need to be there, what kind of BJA, HDMI situation you're going to end up with, what, 4, 2, 3 ratio, the list is endless. The one-on-one location is when you're stressed out on the train and you don't know what to do, you just look at this email and go, ta-da! That is always, always handy. I've heard in downloadable PDF format, other people have other opinions that's absolutely fine, but I do recommend you grab them so people know that they're in the right PDF because I have the own previous year's PDFs and got it wrong so I'll be telling you that. Last thing, not least way, socials. Because of our socials, 5,860 pounds we have non-alcoholic centric event. And what I mean by that is not that we don't have any drinks, but rather we expect you to eat before you drink. And when you fix that because there's a big problem in the UK, is we give free tokens when people go and have their dinner. Our socials include food. Not above-their food. Pie, mashed and mushy peas. It's really worth it.  I know we only give out two tokens because if you want to get drunk it's not an hour cost. We give also, I don't need something to do, last year we had retro games and it was amazing for like, I think it was like 500 quid. This random guy turned over all his retro games and it was like, come here all 64s and say you're meant to produce. He set them all up in the evening and he went home and it was 500 quid. This year we can't get hold of it. I'm thinking right now we're six weeks together, but I'll figure it out. Also we have a drink menu posters which we give tokens to tell the people what they can expect to get out of the bar so the bar queue isn't so long. And we put non-alcoholic drinks first because it really annoys me that the alcoholic drinks are always first. Like, hey, it's my event I get to do it the way I like. You know, I like to drink first because people are more likely to look at the top and go, yeah, I'll have a fancy before they say yeah, I want a whiskey. Also at our socials we have two floors locally so we have four dedicated to a crisis space. Hasn't showed out music, tables, really bright lighting and people talk there and then all the games and the crazy in the bar are all downstairs. So you get this two-tiered system for people you just want to have in chat. It's a nice thing. This is how it breaks down. Oh, it's 367 pounds even better. I don't think I'm going to get that this year but never mind yes. There is definitely more to do but the cost of that is time. In Weigh Out Women the whole final budget was basically £74,000. Weigh Out Women this year is basically £78,000 because the cost of selling things has gone up which is kind of annoying. In fact, at this point of six weeks to go our budget is minus 32%. So the cost of that is basically meaning not sleeping there, we might at the moment. So yeah do not panic, you'll be fine. But a lot of people say to me maybe we should get rid of some of this accessibility. Maybe we should cut back on the cost but the downside of it is when you truly believe that diversity needs to be improved then accessibility needs to be a first-class system in our events. In all our events, our users and our online events and our offline events. We need to set an expectation of what people have and then people can work around it. When you tell people what to expect and what people not to expect, people know how to deal with our situations and they don't have surprises. It's when we have a surprise that people freak out. Any improvement gives better than no improvement. I'm going to be proud of all the people that are working on this. They've had one that I shared. This is the team and they were all absolutely brilliant. They gave so much time to the project and it was I have no words for them. It's coming up in just over six weeks. You're more than welcome to come and see how this all actually works. Yeah, very short of some time but I'm around. I'm on Twitter and I'm a prolific tweeter and you're more likely to get an answer from people who are on my inbox. Do feel free to contact me after this event. I'll be outside after this. The question, I went to an event in Gothenburg and they're on the nice and cheap way to get sign language interpreters. They protected the school for our sign language. That was really good idea. They had their first real world training. Just for the record, you went to an event in Copenhagen and they used sign language students to work experience at their local event which made it cheap. Any other questions? How many sign language for that event? I have no idea. We pay for the venue which is £12,000 and then we pay stuff on top but because it's at university and because we're over the weekend I basically walk around the area and I have that room too and basically don't mention the price and I get away with it but then they kind of suss that out this year so they wouldn't be a sponsor on the website. It's putting a logo on the website and giving me extra rooms. I'm totally going to take that offer but also if you're at university lectures or panels with the students and they'll give you more stuff for free so that's a true tip for you right there. Do you have any ideas for rail signage or large print signage ways to get that done inexpensively? I would suggest putting on the tickets. Making the tickets say that someone needs a braille and you can have those done so that they're ready to go. You don't make them all like that. Ideally we'd like all of them to be done but that's far too high so you do one-off runs and not too bad usually but case-by-case basis really how much money you have versus what you do. I would love to have more money and blow the whole thing apart but there's a realism to it as well which is why I mentioned the kind of cost I expect. Alright, I'm not sure if I finished but I will be outside so I'm going to take all the questions outside. Thank you Laura for listening to this room.


ITU and European Commission are committed to making Europe more accessible through ICTs for people with disabilities and specific needs. Information and communication technologies are fundamental enableness to living independent lives and having an active role in society. From the 23rd to the 25th of March 2021, policymakers, experts, civil society associations, tech companies, academia. We'll come together at Accessible Europe in Portugal. Join us at Accessible Europe and take active part in making Europe more accessible.


Good morning please, can I extend a very warm welcome to the panel and to the audience in what is another lovely morning here in Edinburgh. This is the first event to kick off the festival politics which will run from today until Saturday. My name is Collette Stevenson and I am the MSP for East Kilbride and currently a member of the cross party group on End of Life choices. Before I begin my introductions of the panel, can I just say this is a very emotive discussion we're about to have and one which I hope will be treated with sincerity and respectfulness. This event stems from the topic personal is political and as we will discuss some of the areas such as abortion to equal marriage, personal rights have required political action. Is assisted dying Scotland's next great social reform? As we draw upon personal and international experiences to legislation on the table here in Scotland, today we have an expert panel who will discuss the most deeply personal political issues over time. So when personal is political we then have the politics of increasing personal choice and assisted dying is an issue that transcends political norms. Poland has shown this is an issue that unites us rather than divides voters and if we link to other social change issues such as abortion, how has choice been achieved historically? The politics of dying in the 21st century has seen 200 million citizens worldwide now have access to the assisted dying law for Scotland proposed by our very own Liam McArthur MSP. So what can we learn from that experience? So I'm going to leave it on that note, I'm going to introduce you to our panel but may I give a quick run through of how today's event will run. Panel members will each have about five minutes to speak, introduce themselves and discuss their reasons why they became involved in the session and how they feel the issue of end of life choices links to other social change movements. The audience will then have the opportunity to ask questions to the panel and please can I remind all audience members to keep their questions short and succinct. I am mindful that some audience members may wish to share their harrowing personal stories but this is not the focus of the session today. Please also note that after today's session there will be a breakout area in the cafe bar for anyone wishing to continue on with the discussion and share their views and experiences. We'll then have the closing remarks from the panel and then the meeting will close. Can I just add as well, today we have the pleasure of Alex Greenhitch MP for Sydney and I'll give you a wee brief introduction of the experience that Alex actually brings today. He's an independent member for Sydney in the New South Wales Parliament in Australia. He introduced landmark reforms into the house including the voluntary assisted dying bill which recently became law and will offer end of life choice to people with terminal illness. Alex's forthcoming equality bill will remove LGBTIQA plus discrimination from New South Wales law and Alex will join the panel online. So thank you Alex for joining us today. So I'm actually going to stop there and I'm going to introduce our first panel member who is Ruth Davidson. Thank you Ruth. Thanks Gillette. Hello, thank you all for coming out today. My name is Ruth Davidson, I used to be an MSP here, I was here for 10 years up until May of last year at the election. I think that the personal can be intensely political. The most personal speech I ever gave in my 10 years here was talking about equal marriage and it was also the most nerve wracking I was up. All night the night before I was sick before I spoke about it despite having been quite high profile when I was running to be the leader of my party, my sexuality. It's not something I talked about in public much before and the whole process of that bill and taking it forward was intensely political because it bisected lots of really hard themes about love and faith and rights and things that were intensely personal to people. I'm here today because I'm one of those rare beasts who is a politician that's prepared to say that they've changed their mind. One of the other pieces of legislation that came to Holly Rudewella was a member here, was a private member's bill on assisted dying and I voted against it. One of the things that happens when you leave a parliament is you have a think about and you kind of go back and think about all of the things that you got involved in, what you didn't do, the misses, the losses, the wins. This was the one that felt like it really got away and I felt a bit cowardly at the time and I felt nothing but cowardly since. The reason I was able to vote against it was because it was quite badly drafted law at the time. It wasn't very watertight, there were lots of issues with it and I was able to strike down the text without fully engaging in the substance of it. Again, a very, very difficult subject talking about what it is to live, what it is to die, who has agency, where the state should come in, what rights we have over our own bodies. Also added to that was my own Christian faith, the fact that my sister is an NHS doctor, all of that played into what I was thinking about at the time. Like I say, I was able to in clear conscience say no at that time because the actual law wasn't good enough but on the issue I have had a bit of a journey on this and everything that's happened in my life in the seven years since that bill came here has pointed me to the fact that this is something that I think needs to happen and is ready to happen. The intellectual arguments haven't changed. It is surely wrong that people who seek release are kept in pain. It's surely wrong that if you've got £10,000 you can go to Switzerland if you don't, you can. I think that it's wrong that 300 terminally ill people a year in the United Kingdom seek to take their own life to end their own suffering and I think it's wrong that in England, Wales and Northern Ireland you can face up to 14 years in prison for helping somebody and in this country in Scotland you can face a culpable homicide charge. But for me it was actually not the intellectual arguments, it was the personal arguments. Everything that has happened in my life since then, IVF, the amount of choice that I had over choosing a donor you could filter by eye colour, by blood group, all of this sort of thing, the agency you have over your own life, 50,000 people a year go through IVF in this country and the church has nothing to say about that but it has an awful lot to say about end of life issues. Issues with people within my own family having life limiting conditions and I know we don't want to talk in great detail about our own personal experiences. All of that has played into where I think that we should be. And I think that it seems to me that there is an imbalance here, there is an imbalance that people who desperately wish to be released from pain, who want to be able to be in charge of their own pain management and of how and of where and of who is there and of how their pain is managed at the time of death aren't allowed to do so. And there is an imbalance to me from people who are campaigned on this and have spoken at events like this, who say that it is wrong that it's people without terminal illness that are making the decisions over people who have it. And I think if we look around the world there's 200 million people that live in countries or states where this is legal and not one of them have chosen to rescind the law once they've introduced it. And I think that's quite telling and I think in terms of conclusion to let us get into where everyone else is and we can talk about protections and all the rest of it. I think the biggest imbalance is that those who desperately want this aren't trying to impose it on those people who don't but that those people that don't want this are telling the people who desperately want to need it that they don't even have a choice. And that's I think where parliaments can step in and can change the law. So that's my journey to getting here. Thank you. Thank you very much Ruth and I'm going to pass over to Kezia. Thanks Collette and good morning folks. My name is Kezia Dugdale. I'm now the director of the John Smith Centre at the University of Glasgow which exists to make the positive case for politics and public service. And it's through that vein of trying to promote civilised healthy debate where we all learn to disagree better that I want to pay tribute to Liam actually because I can't think of a better MSP, a better placed MSP to do that work here in the Scottish Parliament of changing minds and driving such an important issue forward. Why am I here? Why blame Margo MacDonald actually? When I first got elected in 2011 the Labour offices were on the ground floor of this building and Margo MacDonald's office was right at the very end and she knew everything about everyone. You couldn't go to the loo without Margo MacDonald knowing that you were on your way. And as the years went by actually she relied as many folk will know on a mobility scooter to get to and from the vote. She used this as a weapon or should I say a road blockade because what she would do is she would park the mobility scooter across the bottom of the corridor and basically kettle you in. And there she had you captive. And it was actually through those conversations with Margo over the years that I became a firm supporter of this particular issue of progressing it through Parliament because Margo made such a compelling case. You've heard some of that already from Ruth this morning. Too many people were dying, undignified deaths and a great deal of pain. Their nearest and deadest were facing severe legal jeopardy. That was deeply unjust. And also the indignity of knowing you could access help and support if you had the money and if you didn't you couldn't. Those were Margo's three arguments that were used so persuasively over the years. I've got to tell you though when it moved to the floor of the Parliament like Ruth I voted against it and I don't have many and that's after being a signatory to the bill actually. I was one of the 18 people that signed the bill when Margo put it forward and since the theme of today is the personal being political I want to tell you why and do so very honestly. So by the time it got to the floor of the Parliament due to the length of the legislative process and the decline of the Labour Party's fortunes I was leader of the Labour Party by that point. Surrounded by lots of advisers that wanted to tell me what the best thing for the party was and what the best thing for me to do was. And I was persuaded that the public were against this and perhaps more specifically that Labour voters were against this. That I would damage my party, that I would create disunity within my party if I were to vote for it whilst leader. And I was persuaded that that was just a bit of unnecessary pain. Now you might think I should have been bigger and have more courage and more character to have overcome that at the time. You may well be right and I regret that. But also I went home at night to a partner who told me then that if I voted for it I might as well not come home again. And I mentioned that again today because these two factors of public opinion and what we perceive public opinion to be and the deeply personal circumstances of how people's relationships function, what they've experienced themselves and how that relates to their politics are the two barriers in the way of this. This particular issue now becoming law. And I think if we are in the business of changing people's minds, if we want to build consensus and majority, it makes sure that those that disagree with us can do so respectfully without being othered, without being victimised, without having their concerns ignored. That's the way to building a piece of legislation which will pass the test of time and also advance the rights of people who really need this progress to be made. So, thank you for that opportunity to share that experience with you and I look forward to the rest of the conversation this morning. Thanks, Kezia. I'm now going to pass over to Liam. Thank you very much, Colletteon. Can I add a very warm welcome to all of you? Thank you for joining us. My name is Liam McArthur. I am the member in charge, the MSP that's looking to bring forward the latest bill to trying to amend the law in relation to assisted dying. I very much recognise Kezia's description of Margo's kettling tactics. I seem to find myself kettled into Queen'sbury House Bar, which is now affectionately known as Margo's, where I was treated to a discourse on the case for assisted dying. She was pushing against an open door unlike Kezia and Ruth. I have been a supporter of assisted dying throughout my time in Parliament since 2007. But I well remember sitting listening to a member's debate. I think it was the first time I had gone into the chamber for a debate I wasn't due to participate in. And listening to my former colleague Jeremy Purvis, leader debate, he was looking to bring forward a bill. This was before Margo had brought forward her bill. But to bring forward a bill based on the Oregon model. And it struck me that those such as Jeremy and those across the chamber making the argument for change. We're doing something pretty profound but also doing something pretty brave. I mean I know Kezia and Ruth have castigated themselves for what they refer to as cowardice. But it struck me on that occasion that this was a difficult issue, almost a third rail that your political career would be damaged possibly terminally so if you were to engage in the case for change. I think over the years that debate has developed but that debate I think proved to me what this Parliament should be about. It didn't break down political lines. There were those from all parties arguing both sides of the argument and doing so passionately and without resorting to the usual kind of political brickbats. I remember a more recent debate on Margo's bill that was taken up by Patrick Harvey by that stage after Margo's untimely death and making the case in support of a bill that was, as Ruth said, far from perfect. It would have needed an awful lot of amending at stage two and stage three but we never got the opportunity to test that proposition. I find that regrettable. But I argued passionately in favour of it. My colleague Alison McInnist sitting behind me in the chamber argued passionately against it and again it was one of those occasions where I felt enormously proud of this Parliament and what it was able to do in terms of giving voice to a debate that is happening day and daily across the country. I feel though now that the political mood has shifted. It is more in line with where the public mood has been for some time now but there is a desire to see a change in the law and that is driven in large part by the sort of personal experiences that Ruth spoke into but I think the everyday experience of very many MSP colleagues across the chamber. And while the bill I'll look to introduce probably early next year will need amending. There's very few of any bills that don't get amended over the course of their passage through Parliament. I detect a desire amongst more of my colleagues now to find reasons to vote for it rather than as Ruth was describing before finding reasons to vote against it. There is a long way to go but this is I think the next great I'll call it liberal reform or social reform. I think once we pass this law we will wonder why on earth it's taking us so bloody long to do so. But we need to get the detail of this right. I'm looking forward to hearing from Alex very shortly because I think some of the experience that we're seeing internationally particularly in some of the states in Australia is very pertinent for the debate we're going to have. Here in the in the Scottish Parliament. So with that professional and seamless segue I will I will look forward to the question and answer session. And thanks. Thanks very much. And I know happens that on CPG that Liam's contribution has been really insightful. So thank you. And on that I will pass over to Alex and we're really looking forward to your contributions today Alex. So thank you. Thank you. Well good morning everybody and good evening from Sydney. I'm from the. And we're on Gadigal land in Australia. We always acknowledge first nations people on whose land we meet. And I'm really pleased to be here to contribute and share our thoughts on the Australian. From the outset let me just say you will achieve voluntary assisted dying in Scotland. It is a reform that is critically important to your community and a reform whose time has come a little bit of background on me. I'm a member for Sydney and Metropolitan Sydney. I'm an independent. I led Australia's campaign for marriage equality and in 2019 I also legislated to decriminalise abortion in New South Wales. Just this year a few weeks or months ago we legislated for voluntary assisted dying that by far was the most emotive and most personal reform I have been involved in. Parliaments do not talk about death a lot. We like to talk about all the good news stories, the announcements and things we have achieved. We don't like to talk about death.   And what we're talking about is legislation which is for people who have a terminal illness, who are dying and who want to have the choice to be able to pick the time and seconds answers in which they die through a range of safeguards which no doubt will be in place in the Scottish law. I think that the big learnings from the New South Wales experience in our parliament is a Conservative parliament. The leaders of the Labour Party and the Conservative coalition who governs both opposed my legislation but both allowed a free vote or conscience vote on the legislation. And I think although it was an extremely personal and emotive story, supporters of the bill spoke about family members or friends who they had seen with the terminal illness dieherifically. Opponents of the bill spoke about their own personal experiences and why they opposed the legislation. Critical to the entire debate was a respect for everybody's views. And the position in which everybody comes to. And people came to this debate from a very personal position, from a faith-based position, from a professional position. The deputy leader of the National Party, who was a coalition partner in our government, was a pallidive care nurse, a strong supporter of the bill because of that experience. And we had people who were strongly representing their constituents' views, which were always in support of the bill. And some who were actually really confused about the detail of the legislation and really needed time to analyse it. So what I really learned was respect and patience were critical to the legislation passing through our parliament. One of the benefits of the tension between the opponents and supporters of reform, and this has actually been seen in every single Australian jurisdiction that has legislated for voluntary assisted dying, is we saw a unanimous support for an increase of funding and access to pallidive care services. And as a result of the legislation passing up our parliament, the New South Wales government also invested a further 750 million Australian dollars in pallidive care services. So between the increased funding and access to pallidive care and what I feel is one of the strongest and most robust pieces of voluntary assisted dying legislation, New South Wales is now a really good place to die, whereas previously this was a topic our parliament didn't want to talk about. Obviously the detail of the legislation is critical. We had had a similar experience with legislation which had gaps in it previously and was voted down. And it's almost good that that was voted down because we were able to then have a stronger piece of legislation that was introduced into this parliament. I would say as the debate goes along, it's going to be really important to listen to and work with opponents and to not be adversarial but to identify where common ground can be gained. We're very careful in the New South Wales legislative process not to put in place new barriers. So I'll give the example of a psychiatric assessment. In some cases, a referral to a psychiatrist is important but not in all cases. So we ensure that there were guidelines which created pathways for an adoptive belt that was appropriate rather than mandating another level which would create an access barrier for others. And that was a common theme throughout our legislation, really empowering the doctors, putting in place strong guidelines and having the person at the heart of the reform. The personal stories which members heard were obviously very harrowing and a critical advocate for us were healthcare workers. People, particularly emergency services people, ambulance officers and the police. The police union and the nurses union and the emergency services union all backed our legislation. Too often police would arrive at the home of a person with a terminal illness who had suicide in a very gruesome way. Our coroner was able to release data that 25% of suicides of people over the age of 40 are linked to a terminal diagnosis. Surely we can do better than that. And what I said to opponents at the time is what we need to facilitate is a conversation between people with a terminal illness and their doctor about their end of life choices. Of which one should be voluntary assisted dying. So they feel they have that control and that option. But in the vast majority of cases will result in the person being referred to appropriate palliative care or other treatment services. This is voluntary assisted dying. It is an option for people. It is an option which prevents someone with, as we know, say advanced bowel cancer from dying from choking on their own feces or someone with advanced lung cancer from dying from drowning in their own fluids. We know that's how these advanced terminal illnesses end. And it's critical that we give people an option, a safe option, an option about where they can control to make sure that they can go in peace and dignity and with their loved ones around. It was what I would say, whether you support this reform or opposed to this reform, members across opinions on this have said this was one of the most important debates for our parliament. It was one of the most honest debates that our parliament has had. As I said, the legislation passed with a strong margin, but we all were able to celebrate as a result of strong investment in palliative care and an honest conversation about death, which is something that will happen to all of us. Thank you very much. Alex, I wonder if you could possibly give advice to our parliamentarians and activists here in Scotland who hope to see similar legislation as Liam touched upon? Well, look, I think I probably outlined a lot of that in my opening remarks. I think respect for opposing views and patience with undecided members of your parliament is critically important. I think research and statistics is critical and I think the role of healthcare workers is really important to share what they see at the front lines. You will benefit, as we did in New South Wales, from plenty of legislative models around the world, which get increasingly sophisticated. We have in Australia voluntary assisted dying in place since 2017 in Victoria, and now every state has it in place. Slightly different models, but largely the principles are the same. So we know this is safe. We know this is an option that people want and we also know that this is an option that not a lot of people take or can access because of the safeguards in legislation. We need to not get into this ideological debate about which we can go down this path around the sanctity of life. This legislation is about people who are dying and they want to be able to die well in a peaceful way and have some control over that. Another really interesting piece of research has come out of Victoria, who have done the state to our south, who have already done statutory reviews of their legislation. It is really interesting to know that people go through this process to the point in which the substance is prescribed to them and they don't take it. They just want to have the option. It gives them that sense of control and that sense of peace, that if things are getting bad, they do have a safe pathway which they have control on. So this is a reform about options. It's a reform about control and it's a reform about really doing the best thing in the interest of an individual who has a terminal illness. Thanks very much. That's been a fantastic contribution, Alex, and thanks for attending today. I really appreciate it. So now I'm going to pass over to our audience and if you could put your hand up and state your name as well. Again, can I just remind you all to keep your questions as short and sanctisposal and for the panel members as well. The lady at the back there. Could you stand up please? Thank you very much. My name is Moira Forrest. I'm of a generation that remembers an official assisted dying and in my lifetime the passage to death has become, in my opinion, less humane. So I was particularly interested in hearing what healthcare workers, those counselling people facing death, and perhaps best have to say on the issue. Thanks very much Moira. I'm going to pass over to Ruth and just want to respond to that question. Moira, thank you very much for your question. I think you're right. There's been not just a change in medicine and the way in which we can help people, but there's also been a change within the medical profession. So the Royal College of Nurses have been in support of this for many years, but there has traditionally been or previously been opposition from the Royal College of Physicians, from the doctors and from the BMA, both of whom have dropped their official opposition to assisted dying in the last two to three years. So we've seen a big move in the medical profession. The BMA held out for quite a long time. Their leadership had thought that this was quite important. They pulled their members and I think were probably quite shocked when they saw the change. I think for balance, I should point out that the Royal College of Surgeons still hold the position that they are officially against this, but in terms of the people who are actually in charge of caring for those at the end of their life, the nurses and the medics rather than the surgeons, the nurses have been in support for quite a long period of time and any official opposition from doctors groups has now been dropped. That's a big change. Thanks, Bruce. William, do you want to touch on that? Yeah, just a couple of points following. I mean, Ruth's made probably the most substantive point in relation to where some of the professional representative bodies stand. The consultation responses, the consultation itself that I ran last year, which elicited the biggest ever response we've seen to proposals for members bill since the Parliament was established. Many of those came from those from just those professions with their own experience. I think one of the telling differences between previous consultations and this consultation is how much people have been desperate to share either the personal or the professional or a combination of both experiences. I think that's informed debate in a way that we haven't seen before, but I think picking up one of the points that Alex made as well, and I think it was implicit more in your question, is about the data gathering. It's not perhaps the most obvious or sexiest end or most debated end of this debate, but it's absolutely crucial. I think some of the data that we have on what's happening at the moment, whether it's in terms of the suicide statistics that we see and what's driving that particularly for those with the terminal illness, whether it's in areas of palliative sedation, that's a withdrawal of treatment or withdrawal of food and liquids. All of that we need to capture far, far better than we do already, as well as capturing the data behind the use of assisted dying should we get a change in the law here. I think again Alex made the point that very many people who opt to go down the route of an assisted death don't end up triggering it. In a sense it provides a reassurance, it's an insurance policy that if things get too bad that option is available, but palliative care, which we're lucky in this country is extremely good. I think there's an argument for investing more in broadening the access to it and I would hope that this debate around my proposals will allow that sort of debate to happen and maybe a similar outcome to what we've seen in New South Wales. But I think that data gathering piece is what particularly those in the professions that you've referred to will be very keen to see and I think in terms of the wider public interest we absolutely need to see because at the moment there are far too many grey areas. OK, thanks very much. There's a lady at the back. Yes, hi. Hi there, good morning. My name's Gillian Wright and I'm previously a palliative care doctor but now work in medical ethics. And just on point of clarity I just wanted to say that the vast majority of palliative care doctors in Scotland are opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia because they're extremely concerned particularly for vulnerable patients and the fact that people might be influenced by the fact that this was made, state assisted dying, for example. And I think just for a point of concern if you look at data from Oregon, more than half of patients in Oregon do cite that feeling a burden is one of the reasons that they opt for assisted suicide, not just for pain but actually for feeling a burden. And I think particularly health care workers are concerned that that's not the kind of society we want to build and also particularly in Oregon that suicide rates, general suicide rates have gone up. So there's great concern in the medical profession and just on Ruth's point about the BMA, it was actually those doctors who look after dying patients so oncologists, general practitioners, palliative care doctors, general physicians who are most opposed. And it was those who don't actually look after dying patients so ENT doctors for example, they were the ones who were in favour. So it does bear looking after the data. Can I just ask you to sum up what your actual question is to the panel? Well one of my questions was I was just intrigued by the fact that you're keen to engage with concerns but yet there's nobody on the panel who is opposed. Thanks, Gillian. I mean for point of reference you are from care not killing or duty of care. I think I'm very prepared to engage with your own organisation and with opponents of a change in the law. I think though as I said in my introduction, this is a change that now needs to happen. I think the debate needs to be around how it happens, what are the safeguards that provide at least some reassurance, whether it's to those in the health professions, whether it's to the wider public. But ultimately this is a change that we need to see happen and therefore that's what the focus of those discussions needs to take place. I think in relation to those within the palliative care sector, I think what's interesting in terms of the consultation responses and I need to be slightly careful, I'm due to publish the report on the consultation responses early next month. But as I said before, there were many many responses from those from the health care professions. Many of them though chose to do so anonymously and I dare say one of the underlying factors there is that there is a pressure within the sector not to stick the head above the prior but particularly in areas like palliative care where this might be seen for whatever reason as a conflict with their responsibilities. I think as we've seen across the world this has been introduced in ways that are safe, that do command public support, do command the support of the health care professions and we're not seeing a groundswell in any of those states or countries to see the legislation overturn. So I can understand there are anxieties out there we need to get the detail of this right and I'm very happy to continue to engage but it will be an engagement on how we get this right rather than whether or not we need a change in the law. Can I just quickly as well touch upon what Gillian said in terms of being a burden? I actually see it as helping the family as well and not so much as that vulnerability you touched upon however that burden and the way in which people basically the experience they've got and the trauma from seeing an undignified death. So again with the correct palliative care in place and also just that reassurance of choices as well that it actually aids in the family and friends around them and it's been evidence time and time again about families who have suffered PTSD due to the lack of proper care and what not as well. So I will just leave it at that and I'm going to ask Ruth to I think she wants to make a comment. My maiden speech in the House of Lords when I joined last year was actually on this issue because there was a private members bill that was brought forward there and what was I think most heartening about it was that on both sides there was the concession that everybody is arguing from the point of what they believe to be the best for people at the worst time in their life. And that we absolutely accept that people are coming to this in good faith. And in terms of the point that was just raised I'd just like to clarify the BMA survey which I was talking about had results from 28,986 people and the breakdown of which of their members worked in oncology or elsewhere wasn't made. So I'm absolutely willing to concede that it may be true that palliative care doctors or people from oncology or general practitioners may have. I don't actually think in good faith we can say that that was the result of that poll because that breakdown was never published because there was nearly 29,000 people that responded to it. Thanks Ruth. Can I just take the lady at the front in the green top? This is a question perhaps Chairman if I may through to Liam. To what extent of any were the courty of guardianship involved in consultation and will there be, how do you gauge the likelihood or not of getting consensus on an interfaith basis because if you would take the doctrinal view of somebody like Professor Haldane it might well differ to that of other things. There are no faiths and there's no ethicist or philosopher on the panel this morning. And I wondered in respect of what Ruth said earlier if any of the consultation responses were framed in such a way as to indicate that part of the medical fears might have been about subsequent litigation. Thank you. That's quite a few questions so hopefully Liam can wrap that up quickly. I'll do my best. I think in terms of powers of attorney I suppose that gets us into the territory of advanced directions or living wills. I don't think this bill is going to be able to address that in the way that I know some would wish it to do. I think there are problems there but I would imagine even if it's not contained within the bill I introduced to Parliament it will very much be an issue that will be raised in evidence to the, I'm assuming the health committee who will be the lead candidate. Who will want to take oral evidence on the submissions that are made to it so it will be an issue. I suspect health committee will take the lead but other committees with an interest have an opportunity to be secondary committees and take evidence on specific aspects of it and it may well be that that is picked up by another committee. I'm not intending to include that in the proposals I bring forward. In terms of those of faith it's an interesting one. I don't want to rest too heavily on polling. Understand the limitations of that or the potential pitfalls. Nevertheless I think there are those of pretty much every faith who both support and oppose a change in the law here and there will be probably every grade in between. I recognise that church groups and faith groups may take a position on behalf of their faith of their church but I would contend that that isn't necessarily a position held by everybody in that church or of that faith. We're seeing that in the consultation, we see it in polling as well. I think there's a health warning I would attach to the positions that are held there. The final question was on... Whether from what Ruth has said? Oh, protection... In a sense, that will absolutely need to form part of the law and I think by encapsulating that within the law it provides that legal certainty. You're absolutely right, I think there will be anxieties there. Some that Gillian was referring to before may arise as a result of perhaps fears of litigation but the intention of the bill will be to provide that legal certainty and that legal protection. At the same time we need to find ways of allowing those who have conscientious objection to this an ability to opt out of participant. Even if they then there's still a requirement to signpost as there is for example with abortion but I think recognising that this is a choice and that there are those for whom this does not square with their conscience and we will wish to opt out of participating. We need to find mechanisms for learning to do that. Thanks Liam, I'm obviously conscious of the time because somebody actually reminds me of the time. 10 minutes or so. There's a gentleman over here with his hands up. Maybe it was yourself, sorry. Hello, my name's Gordon Wiley and I am currently the treasurer and former convener of an organisation called Friends at the End which has a great interest in all of this. My question is probably addressed more to Baroness Ruth and anyone else since she's now a member of the United Kingdom legislature. The General Medical Council has jurisdiction over all the medical practitioners in the entire United Kingdom and it does not take account of the fact that our law is different from the law of England and Wales in particular. Ruth, I think it was true attention earlier to the fact that the law there is different and that people can be sent to prison for I think it's up to 14 years if they help somebody in any kind of way even to discuss end of life choices. The General Medical Council has issued a fiat to the fact to effect that you cannot discuss end of life choices with your patients nor can you issue them with certificates that will help them to go to Switzerland. So, I do feel that the General Medical Council needs to be brought into line with the fact that we live in a different jurisdiction here and I wonder if something can be done about that. Thank you. Actually, while I'm happy to take this one, I'm sure Kez and Liam will want to weigh in too. When devolution happened there were lots of pan-UK bodies that didn't have within them a kind of understanding of what that meant or where changes happened and it's not just for Scotland but for Northern Ireland and for Wales as well. As change arises they have to adapt and change too to be able to comply within the laws of the land. I think it's perhaps a bit patrician to say get the GMC into line but I do think that as laws change and as that directly affects their members you will be able to see that reflected in the way in which pan-European bodies like the GMC are also able to work within the laws of each of the four home nations. Is that fair? It's probably time for one or two more questions, sorry. There's a gentleman at the back there. Thank you very much. My name's Gareth Morgan. I wanted to pick up on some of the faith-based points that have been made which I think have been really actually helpful. Thank you in particular to Ruth for making reference to the fact that it's your own Christian faith that partly used to support this. Also to follow up on what Liam was saying, I would really say to all the MSPs who are supporting this legislation, please don't treat the faith groups as somehow being quote on the other side because you rightly say there is a huge perspective within that. I speak myself as a practising Catholic who is actually very keen to see change the law on these lines and although the official Catholic teaching just seems to be completely opposed, when you start delving into Catholic teaching there's all sorts of cases where things may not be seen as desirable but they're not necessarily morally culpable. You get into complicated situations like that. I've certainly found talking to Catholic parishioners after Mass that people are quite sensitive and supportive of the idea that someone in great pain should be allowed to have their life ended. People sometimes don't quite understand the need for legislation. A lot of people say you should just leave it to the doctors, but of course they don't understand that you've got to change the legislation in order to allow doctors to do that. I just wanted to make the appeal. Please as you go forward, can you work on this basis of dialogue with faith groups and recognise there is a lot of common ground to build on and particularly I think there's real scope for bringing the faith communities in on the final processes. We know that in Holland for example there's a lot of close working between palliative care, faith chaplins and assisted dying and that holistic linking people together at the end of life with the spiritual care and the physical care is so important and if that can be focused on the bill that'd be great. Thanks very much for your comments. What I'm going to do is there's a lady at the front there where her hand's up so I think I'm going to take the two comments that you made and the lady there and then I'll ask the panel to comment or whoever wants to comment on it and then we're going to get to closing remarks by each of the panel members. Hello, my name is Kirsten Nielsen and there's two things. I did some living care work and I live on my own abroad from where my family lives. This is my nation and they're still back in Denmark. So I have two issues and I'm wondering if they're going to tag on to this end of life. I would like to keep the right to not be a bother. That's part of my dignity that if I get to a stage where I could be kept from dying as opposed to kept alive it's a very fine line but there's a place in there where I preserve the right to not be a bother. It's one thing. The other thing is does the DNRs tie in with this at all because in my care work I looked after quite a few who had had surgeries to survive which have left them in a situation that was frustrating to them. So frustrating that they came up against the world and had horrible bitter lives, drinking lives, lives of tired of the wars were phrases that came out. So I'm wondering if it could be okay to not be one to be a bother and if the DNRs could maybe also help end of life with dignity. Okay, thank you very much. Would any of the panel members like to comment on? I'll make a couple of very brief comments in relation to the gentleman's point about those of faith. I think as I say it's reflected in what we're seeing and polling it's reflected in what we're seeing in terms of the responses to the consultation. I've certainly tried to offer those reassurances to my MSP colleagues. It's far more influential when those of faith who are supportive of a change in the law contact those MSPs directly. But I think that position, that understanding is far clearer now than it was as I said when I sat in the members debate that Jeremy Purvis led those voices of opposition were very strong, they were very vocal, they were very influential and it did feel like a dangerous place to be in advocating for change. We're no longer there and I think part of that is because people understand that within the faith community there is a breadth of views as there is in the population as a whole. In terms of the right to not be a bother, I think back to the point again that Gilliam referred to about the situation in Oregon and people citing the fact that they felt a burden. That's right, it was a closed list of options to tick. Being a burden though was not amongst the top three. It was the loss of autonomy, the loss of equality of life. Those were the drivers behind the decision to seek and assist the death. They're not wanting to be a bother, they're not wanting to be a burden fed into that but was of a lower order of priority. Actually one of the concerns about vulnerable people being encouraged to shuffle off this mortal calling by nefarious members of the family who are eager to grab on to their inheritance ahead of time. Actually the experience in other countries has been that the resistance to the assisted death has often come from the family and actually getting the wishes of the person that wants to die respected has been difficult. Those conversations about what we do at the end of life, how we want to die and not just how we want to live is I think a very healthy thing for us as a society to engage in it. And as I say coming out of the pandemic we've probably had more occasion to reflect on those sorts of issues than we had previously. I'm not sure how the bill will touch on DNRs. I'll be interested to see what comes through in terms of the evidence to the committee and I'm fairly sure it will feature as part of that debate. So that brings us to the end of our discussion on this and what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask it to the panel members to make a very brief closing remark on this and that will bring us to a close. So can I start with Kezia and ask for you to close up for us Kezia? Thanks Collette and I just really wanted to make one further point which is really about the reference we've made today to Liam's Bill and the consultation around Liam's Bill. It'd be very easy I think after this past hour to think that was the be all and the end all of it and that was the end of you being asked your opinions on this or your ability to influence it. By the point it's introduced to Parliament there will be a really extensive consultation process that will go through the Parliament's three stages. So the Parliament will sit in a full plenary session where the principles of the bill will be discussed and I think at that point for the first time we might see a majority of our MSP colleagues support the principle of what we're talking about today. That doesn't mean it becomes law at that point it goes into a very detailed and considered committee stage where line by line issues are addressed, expert witnesses are brought in, there's the opportunity for citizens of the country to influence that as well. So to address the point that the man at the front made earlier around the legal provisions and how that might be addressed that's the point where you find little knots that need untied. Like perhaps what the role of the Lord Advocate might be in providing additional assurance around any prosecution aspects of what may or may not happen in the event of the law becoming an active Parliament and then it goes into the final stage three part of the parliamentary process where all the MSPs come back together to look at that piece of legislation in the round. Does it do everything we want it to do, there's a further opportunity there for people to amend it from the floor of the chamber. So I just wanted to reassure people that there is a long and considered process here as there is for all pieces of legislation that goes through the Parliament and the chance to examine the detail and to go through this and try and bring as many people as possible with us along that common goal is there for everyone to grasp. On the wider issue the thing that I found most heartening about today's discussion was listening to Alex in New South Wales and him explaining that having had such a process to consider this and to have that serious and often difficult to be one of the things that came out of it was that as well as introducing voluntary assisted dying there was also an uplift in funding for palliative care. A lot of people I think worry that if we introduce this that means that we take money and focus away and it doesn't have to be this way and we're lucky in this country. My wife is Irish she lost her mum to cancer when she was 14 she had been diagnosed several years before she died and she distinctly remembers her mum and dad going round the house working out what to sell to fund some of her care. So we're really lucky but don't think that doesn't mean that you can't also demand better for people at their end of life whether they are given the opportunity to choose this or not because we can and should demand better for palliative care as well as offer people the opportunity to be able to have more agency about how they die, where they die, the sort of pain relief they have when they die, who's with them and what sort of medical care and support that they can have at the time of their death. Thanks just very quickly Liam, can you close the sum up? No, I've probably had more in my allocation of time I think the point that Ruth made in relation to palliative care and the fact that this isn't a zero sum game in fact quite the contrary this is an opportunity to look at what we do in terms of palliative care and the range of end of life choices we have I think could quality palliative care we don't always have the access that we should have particularly to special palliative care. There is an opportunity through this bill to drive forward that debate but there is plenty of opportunity to engage in this discussion. As Ruth said, the hard yards are still to come and getting the detail of this right but I think if we can do so in a respectful fashion and I appreciate there will be those disappointed because they don't want to see a change in the law at all and those who are disappointed because they don't believe this goes far enough but nevertheless I think we can conduct it in a respectful manner. We will come out with legislation that this parliament can be proud of and that this country and our population can have confidence in and that I think must be what we aspire to. Thanks very much Liam. That brings us to the end of this event and it's been so insightful and really really interesting and there's been so many good contributions today and there's been lots of uptake from the audience as well. So can I just say thanks to your panel and Alex is no longer here with us but his contribution today was absolutely fantastic so thank you once again and I'm being told quickly to wind up because we're running out of time. So thanks very much for coming along today and listening to us. It's the first one of our festival politics and there's been an outstanding attendance as well. Thank you very much.


What's everyone takedown here welcome back to another hockey card video today? I'm gonna be opening up at three of these 2021 22 SP blaster boxes Hopefully we do get either a complete sets But also looking for a ton of rookie to ton of numbered rookies and the rookie jersey cards as well You say do one box per video But today I decided to do three because this is probably gonna be the last that I do these products here because I think I'll Likely get a complete set of the rookies and the base set as well of these so hopefully we do and We're gonna try to go as quickly as we can since we're doing three times what we usually unbox We're gonna go ahead and dive straight in hopefully we get some really great cards out of these And there's eight packs per box Let's just get started here first pack here It's gonna let it focus Do have the blue base which I'm not a huge fan of and we do have a rookie authentic for Moritz cedar So our first rookie today, which I honestly can't remember if I already have his or not Next pack here. Oh We do have an SP authentic Rookie authentic for aksander Holtz. This is numbered 18 out of 199 I don't know why it's not focusing there, but I didn't realize they're doing the red Ones this year. I've seen the silver the gold and now there's red So that's the first red that we've seen we do have a Joel Valeno SP rookie as well And the rest are obviously base so we did get two good hits out of that We've got a rookie card and a low numbered rookie card as well I'm gonna have to look up the value of that one. We have Sydney Crosby here and We do have an authentic profiles for Anthony's rally So I remember last year or the previous year for the sets. I did go for a complete Authentic profiles. I haven't been getting too many of them for this set So they will just go for the rookies as well. So we have the rookies for Trevor Zegras That's a nice one there. I wish we get his numbered one Or at least a jersey out of a top player as well. I think a byfield might be in this I think there's some good players as well in this Seth Jarvis SP rookie. Well, we did get a jersey card here. So we have an SP rookie authentic Jersey for Cole Perfetti This is the gold here. I wish these ones came numbered They'd be so cool if they're numbered. Maybe there is versions that are numbered Let me know at least we have a really good hit out of this box and we have Spencer Knight's SP rookie I also have his young guns. I got that too Not too long ago actually. So it's really nice. I want I wish that was his jersey card or is Yeah, Spencer Knight's jersey card Just there's a lot of players in this year's set that I'd love to get their jersey cards or numbered ones we have McDavid in the blue and We have Riley Damani SP rookie We're getting a lot of rookies as well, which is good So hopefully I do get a complete set of those there is a hundred base cards And then there is 40 rookie cards as well for the set. So we're getting really good. We have a Mike Smith authentic profiles So two authentic profiles and the rest are all rookies So that is the first box right there I'm just gonna move the box and the empty packs out of the way. I'm gonna dive in to the next box here So to me that was a really good box. We did get a low number of rookie hits As well as a ton of regular rookies and we have that Jersey rookie as well. Hopefully we do get a few more I love getting those Jersey cards, and they're just great additions to my collection as well Go to the next box here Let's see. We do have vastly pod calls in SP rookie and The rest are all base I realized I'm not even separating the blue base right now I'll do that off-camera, but I'm not going for a blue base set because I just don't really care for them They're more limited You have Connor David there Authentic profiles for Tyler Burt Zui the next pack here.  Oh We did get a numbered rookie card here. I love that coal in this is numbered five 73 out of 1199 So Seattle that's an actually a nice hit for me, and we do have Riley Damini I think we already have his today But we have his rookie card as well. So that might be the only double rookie card that we have right now That we got out of the first box and we're over halfway through the second box So that's actually really good See what we get here Mike Smith authentic profiles We already got his authentic profiles in this video as well. So that's I guess another double Hopefully we don't start getting doubles now John Jason Peterka probably butchered his last name. I do apologize, but at least we know at least I know I don't have that one Sydney Crosby keep getting his base cards and Brandon Duhammy SP rookies So I like the SP cards because the rookies are the nice blue But even the regular rookies as you can see But overall I just like getting the numbered cards the jersey cards. We are on to the last box here So the final eight packs in the first box. We did get the jersey card and a low numbered Numbered card for the rookie for the last box. We only got one numbered card So hopefully this box here makes up for some of the bigger hits. Oh And just like that we did get a numbered card right off the bat So we did get Troy Terry numbered 341 out of 1199 for authentic profiles. This might be the first numbered authentic profiles that I got and we also have Driftales SP rookie as well, which I didn't realize he was in this set That is awesome Next up that is the first Marc-Andre Fleury that I got That has this Chicago jersey on We do have Jan Jankin SP rookie We have authentic profiles for Drake Batherson Add that to my collection as you guys know I'm a sends fan. So I like getting those Next pack here Authentic profiles Kyle Connor. We are getting more authentic profiles in this box Then we have in the previous two boxes. We have the numbered one and we've had two so far of The other ones so three in total Authentic root rookie for Alexander Holtz. I don't know if I have this one yet But we have his low numbered red rookie card there as well final three packs Lucas Raymond's SP rookie She really liked that one. We do have another rookie for Taylor Radish I do have one pack left We didn't get a big hit.  So hopefully the final pack has something in it here Let's check it out final pack and it has a Logan Thompson SP rookie, which is awesome. I didn't realize he was in the sets, but now we have his so there's a lot of Good rookies in the 2021 22 SP sets that is amazing. So great possibilities of getting low numbered Rookie cards the Jersey rookie cards of some pretty good players. So hopefully Maybe if I don't have a complete set I might get another one or two boxes But I think with this Hopefully that is close to a complete sets and hopefully with all these rookies that we received today I think there's only one double in there. So hopefully that is almost a complete set of the rookies Hope you guys enjoyed this video. I'll see you guys in the next one. Please take care. Peace


Here's what many Christians need to know about the presence of the Holy Spirit. Yes, He is omnipresent, but there's another manifestation of His presence that's exclusive to the believer. That's His indwelling presence. Jesus said He would send the Holy Spirit and that the Holy Spirit would reside in us. In Acts 2, the Holy Spirit came upon the church. Romans 8 makes it clear that the believer has the Holy Spirit in a way that others do not. While the Holy Spirit does dwell everywhere, we should be thankful for the heightened influence of His presence in the life of the believer. And may we have the faith to walk in the reality of that presence, that indwelling presence, every single day. If you're thankful for the presence of the Holy Spirit in your life, type Amen.


In my video, Eggs vs. Cholesterol in atherosclerosis, I profiled a study showing that smoking more than a pack a day for 10 years is bad for your arteries, and combining egg eating and smoking is even worse, thus the effect of eggs and smoking appear to be additive. But egg yolks alone in non-smokers was associated with artery clogging, plaque buildup, nearly two-thirds as bad as smoking. This certainly ruffled some feathers. Yes, eggs are by far the number one source of cholesterol in the American diet, but letters to the editor like this one protested that dietary cholesterol may have very little impact on blood cholesterol levels, citing this study, published in 1971, performed on eight people. But if you look at dozens of studies all put together, covering hundreds of study subjects, we find that blood cholesterol concentration is clearly increased by added dietary cholesterol. Here's an extreme example just to illustrate a year in the life of a study subject on and off eggs. First, they take them off eggs, putting them on a cholesterol-free diet, and his cholesterol plummets within just three weeks.  Of course, the only reason we care about our cholesterol levels or how much plaque is building up inside our arteries is because we want to avoid the consequences, like a heart attack. So, do eggs increase our risk of cardiovascular disease or not? Here's the latest meta-analysis, the latest compilation of all the best studies on egg consumption and risk of heart disease, going back to 1930. When you put them all together, what do we find? Overall, those that ate the most eggs had a 19% increased risk of cardiovascular disease, a 68% increased risk of diabetes, and then once you get diabetes, an 85% increased risk of heart disease. And it didn't take much, less than a single egg a day was associated with a significantly increased risk of heart disease. Just over half an egg a day, an increased heart disease risk between 6 and 40% and the risk of diabetes, 29%. They conclude that they're finding support the American Heart Association Dietary Guidelines, which advise restricted egg consumption in adults for preventing cardiometabolic diseases, like diabetes, our seventh leading cause of death, and heart disease, killer number one.