More than 1,000 doctors urge MPs to vote against assisted dying bill

Sky News

4 hours ago

More than 1,000 doctors have written to MPs urging them to vote against the assisted dying bill, calling it a "real threat to both patients and the medical workforce".
The bill - which is due to be voted on by MPs for a final time on 20 June - would allow terminally ill patients from England and Wales to end their lives "on their own terms", providing they have a life expectancy of six months or less.
A separate bill is currently passing through the Scottish parliament.
But doctors from across the NHS have written to MPs, warning them of their "serious concerns".
Notable signatories include Sir John Burn, a geneticist who has led decades of cancer research, Sir Shakeel Qureshi, who was knighted for his work in paediatric cardiology, Professor Aileen Keel, the former deputy chief medical officer for Scotland, and Baroness Finlay, a Welsh doctor, professor of palliative medicine and member of the House of Lords.
The letter is signed by four doctors who hold OBEs, two who have MBEs, and one CBE.
The letter says that while a debate is needed on end of life care, "this bill is not the answer".
It raises concerns that not enough evidence has been heard from doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups.
"This bill will widen inequalities, it provides inadequate safeguards and, in our collective view, is simply not safe," it goes on to say, calling it a "deeply flawed bill".
1:40
Professor Colin Rees, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working group on assisted dying, said it was the "single most important piece of healthcare legislation in 50 or 60 years".
"It will have very profound consequences for the future and many doctors are really concerned that members of parliament are not hearing the views of the medical profession."
He said many doctors who remain neutral, or who even support the principle of assisted dying, remain concerned about the bill.
"We don't think it's a bill that is safe, that protects patients, protects families, and protects the medical workforce."
What stage are the two assisted dying bills at now?
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed the House of Commons with a majority of 55 in November.
Scotland's Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland Bill) pass with a 14 majority in May.
But the legislation has not been without controversy, with 150 amendments made to get it through the first stage.
The bill will return to the House of Commons for a third reading this Friday. If voted through by MPs it will then proceed to the House of Lords.
'No safeguards against coercion'
One of the areas of concern raised by the medics was the inability to properly identify patients at risk of coercive control.
"Vulnerable patients are at risk of coercion with women, victims of domestic abuse, and the elderly at particular risk," the letter says.
It also warned it would widen social inequalities, with patients who do not have the resources for a comfortable death more likely to opt for assisted dying.
"People who struggle to pay for heating or care or wish to preserve their assets for their children are at high risk of choosing to die if the option is available and the alternative is more difficult."
Data from the Annual Report of Dying With Dignity from Oregon in 2024 found 9.3% of those people who choose assisted deaths do so for financial reasons.
'Doctors get it wrong 40% of the time'
Concerns have also been raised around the inaccuracies of medical prognosis.
"Research demonstrates that doctors get prognosis wrong around 40% of the time," the letter says.
"As such, patients may end up choosing an assisted death and losing what could have been happy and fulfilling months or years of life."
1:50
The bill is also a risk to families, the letter says, as it does not require doctors to speak with family members.
"A close relative may know nothing until they get a call to arrange collection of their relative's body," it says, adding that there is no mechanism for a family member to raise concerns about a request.
The letter also addressed the potential impact on the medical workforce.
Evidence from the Netherlands suggests "doctors feel pressurised when dealing with patient requests for assisted deaths, meaning that doctors may end up having involvement despite it being against their principles, because they want to help their patients".
Doctors' letter highlight concerns about the risk to:
Patients
Does not necessitate treatment of depression or other remediable factors; does not protect against risk of coercion, particularly for women and the elderly; does not ensure that the assessment panel must meet the patient; will widen social inequalities, adversely affecting the socioeconomically deprived; does not take account of the inadequacies of assessing medical prognosis.
Families
Does not necessitate any involvement of families. The first they may know is when they are called to come and collect the body; assumes that an assisted death is 'better' than a well-managed natural death but there is little or no evidence in the literature for this assertion.
Palliative care
Makes it a legal right for patients to access assisted dying, but does not mandate a comparable right to be able to access other end of life services; means that patients may choose assisted dying because palliative care provision is inadequate • Places palliative care consultants (a speciality in which 80% of doctors are opposed to assisted dying) at the heart of delivering the services; ignores the fact that the UK is currently ranked higher for its palliative care services than any country that delivers assisted dying and the fact that countries that introduce assisted dying almost invariably see a decline in the quality of their palliative care services.
The medical workforce
Does not adequately recognise the risk of harm to doctors from delivering assisted dying; is unclear whether assisted dying should be considered a 'treatment'.
Provision of adequate care
Proposes a panel which is not a multidisciplinary team and will not know the patient; proposes use of drugs which are not regulated or approved and does not mandate any monitoring of their complications.