logo
Assisted dying: BMA says patients should meet end-of-life care doctor first

Assisted dying: BMA says patients should meet end-of-life care doctor first

Western Telegraph20 hours ago

A motion passed by delegates at the British Medical Association's annual representative meeting (ARM) in Liverpool on Monday proposed a number of changes to the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill.
The proposed legislation for assisted dying cleared the Commons with a majority of 23 votes on Friday and will move to the House of Lords for further debate.
To ensure patient care needs have been met, and to help detect coercion, any patient requesting assisted dying should be encouraged to attend face-to-face reviews by an independent specialist palliative care doctor before the assisted dying pathway begins Dr Samuel Parker, BMA
As it stands, the Bill would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
British Medical Association (BMA) members have now called for patients to also have an in-person review with an independent palliative care doctor at the very start of the process.
Speaking at the union's meeting, Dr Samuel Parker said: 'To ensure patient care needs have been met, and to help detect coercion, any patient requesting assisted dying should be encouraged to attend face-to-face reviews by an independent specialist palliative care doctor before the assisted dying pathway begins.
'This can also ensure whether the patient has received the best quality outcomes prior to preventing their assisted dying.'
Dr Sarah Foot added: 'Choice is only a choice if it is an informed choice… this is about making sure that patients know their options, that have had access to palliative care.
'What is uncomfortable is patients choosing to die when they haven't had access to palliative care and don't know what's available to them.
'Our united voice will help influence this Bill in the House of Lords later this year, be proud and proactive and stand up for some of our most vulnerable patients.
'Those who are dying are physically and emotionally dependent on us in society to help safeguard them. They need to be safe and supported.'
MPs voted in favour of the third reading of the assisted dying Bill by a majority of 23 (House of Commons/UK Parliament/PA)
Dr Parker warned that palliative care in the UK is under-resourced, 'with few specialists, a post-Covid lottery and a shortage of funding'.
He said patients deserve rapid access to high-quality care, adding that 'safety and patient welfare are essential'.
Dr Foot said: 'Hospices and palliative care does not have enough funding. We cannot live in a society were we fully fund assisted dying, but we don't fully fund hospice and palliative care.'
Last week, the Health Secretary – who was one of the most senior opponents of the legislation – warned that legalising assisted dying would take 'time and money' away from other parts of the NHS.
Writing on his Facebook page, Wes Streeting said he could not ignore the concerns 'about the risks that come with this Bill' raised by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Royal College of Physicians, the Association for Palliative Medicine and charities representing under-privileged groups.
The motion at the BMA ARM also affirmed the right of doctors to decline involvement in the service. An opt-out for all healthcare professionals is already built into the Bill.
Health Secretary Wes Streeting voted against the Bill in Parliament (Lucy North/PA)
Speaking of the potential impact of assisted dying on the mental wellbeing of healthcare professionals, Dr Parker called on the BMA to ensure there are 'no subtle pressures' on doctors to participate, and 'no risk of professional sanction or discrimination'.
Dr Andrew Green, chairman of the BMA's medical ethics committee, said: 'While the BMA is neutral on the issue of assisted dying – that is whether the law should change or not – we have been engaging with legislation to ensure doctors are represented on a number of key issues.
'This motion reaffirms, and strengthens, a number of the BMA's existing positions, including the right for doctors to decline to participate for any reason should the law change, and the need for any assisted dying service to be funded through new money and not at the expense of other parts of health and social care.
'We have been clear that any future assisted dying provision should be offered via a separate service that doctors must opt in to, and not part of any doctor's existing regular work. This service must come with additional funding, alongside further investment in palliative care, which we know has for too long been under-resourced, leading to huge variations in availability across the country.
'In discussions around Kim Leadbeater's Bill in England and Wales, which has now passed its final stages in the Commons, we have strongly opposed moves to ban doctors from raising the subject of assisted dying with patients, but have been clear that this must be part of a discussion around all options available.
'This motion expands on this, ensuring that patients who may be considering assisted dying are able to access information about all possible treatment and routes available to them.'
Meanwhile, research has suggested that almost half (47%) of UK adults surveyed are worried they or their loved ones will have a painful or undignified death.
The survey, carried out by Focaldata for King's College London (KCL), found 44% feel worried about the quality of palliative and end-of-life care in the UK, although 46% said they feel confident services will be available when they or loved ones need them.
Meanwhile, the polling found 61% of the 2,106 adults asked in March were supportive of the assisted dying Bill which is currently being considered by Parliament for England and Wales.
KCL is launching The Impact Centre for Palliative and End-of-Life Care in autumn, a privately-run centre aiming to improve palliative care in the UK, and establish a framework for better care which it said could be applied around the world.
The centre, funded by the Kirby Laing Foundation, will be the first of its kind in the UK and will work to 'create long term, systemic change in the delivery of care for dying people'.
Centre lead Professor Katherine Sleeman, said: 'Although a wealth of evidence has now been generated on ways to improve experiences and outcomes for people approaching the end of life, too often this evidence is not used to improve care, meaning dying people suffer and those close to them are left to pick up the pieces.
'By closing the gap between evidence and practice, the Impact Centre for Palliative and End-of-Life Care will make a profound and lasting difference for people with life-limiting illnesses and their loved ones, now and in the future.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

The long-delayed NHS Scotland app that will launch this year for only one type of patient
The long-delayed NHS Scotland app that will launch this year for only one type of patient

Scotsman

time11 minutes ago

  • Scotsman

The long-delayed NHS Scotland app that will launch this year for only one type of patient

The NHS Scotland app has been long delayed - and now will launch with only one service. Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Scotland's NHS app is set to launch later this year with access only for dermatology patients, it has been reported. The release date for the long-awaited app that was first promised at the height of the Covid pandemic in 2021 was brought forward in an announcement by First Minister John Swinney. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad A NHS Scotland worker with a mask during Covid. Picture: Jane Barlow | Jane Barlow But The Times reports the app had been scaled back to a 'more limited scope … than originally envisaged', as an internal review found there were still 'significant issues' with its delivery. The app has previously been branded a 'national embarrassment' by Dr Iain Morrison, chairman of BMA Scotland's GP committee. The app was originally due to go live in March next year, but the launch date was then brought forward by four months. The review into the app was carried out by a Scottish Government team in March, with the findings released following a Freedom of Information request. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Details of the review show the change to the launch date had caused confusion, with one document saying those running the project would have to 're-plan significantly to accommodate the accelerated timeline'. This meant the app would only cover a 'small set of services for one specialty', the document said. Social media app WhatsApp, displayed on a mobile phone screen. A watchdog has reprimanded a health board after staff members shared patients' personal data on WhatsApp hundreds of times. Picture: Yui Mok/PA Wire A separate project document produced by the NHS had said expectations around the app would need to be 'carefully managed'. 'There is a risk that the initial offering may be underwhelming,' the document added. Health Secretary Neil Gray had confirmed earlier this month the launch of the NHS Scotland app would be restricted to dermatology. Sandesh Gulhane, the Scottish Conservative health spokesman, said: 'This internal review confirms the chaos, delays and mind-boggling expense caused by the SNP's mismanagement of Scotland's NHS. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'Suffering patients and dedicated NHS staff deserve better than this SNP government whose failures are taking away valuable millions from frontline healthcare.' A Scottish Government spokesman told The Times: 'The health and social care app is on course to launch initially in Lanarkshire in 2025.

Britain has a messy relationship with money - no wonder we're so divided over doctors' pay
Britain has a messy relationship with money - no wonder we're so divided over doctors' pay

The Guardian

time30 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Britain has a messy relationship with money - no wonder we're so divided over doctors' pay

'Because you're worth it,' goes the ad. But knowing who is worth what is even harder to determine than it was half a century ago. So as doctors vote in a strike ballot, how will the public weigh up their just reward? Some 50,000 resident doctors – formerly known as junior doctors – are deciding whether to walk out again in England. Their year-and-a-half-long series of strikes ended with Wes Streeting agreeing a 22.3% pay rise over two years. Now their seniors, hospital consultants, are about to vote on striking to reclaim the 26% the British Medical Association (BMA) says their pay has fallen by since 2008. The public backed striking doctors last year despite the 1.3m healthcare appointments lost, which cost the NHS £1.5bn. Beyond pay, that was a protest against a government that had stripped the NHS bare: public satisfaction with the health service was at a peak in 2010 but by last year it had fallen to its lowest since records began. There was a strong sense among staff and the public that this was about defending the state of the service. Would doctors get that public backing now? YouGov finds 48% opposed to further strike action, with 39% of voters in favour. Times have changed: the NHS was the big gainer in this month's spending review, with extra funding designed to cut waiting times and increase GP appointments, though it is still under intense strain. Senior medics, including the former president of the Royal College of General Practitioners, Clare Gerada, wrote a letter to the Guardian imploring doctors not to strike again. 'The NHS is at a more perilous state than at any time in our careers,' they wrote. 'A doctors' strike would further diminish the ability of the NHS to deliver, and play into the hands of those who don't believe in an NHS that is publicly funded and based on need not want.' Streeting has just awarded resident doctors an average pay rise of 5.4%, more than the rest of the NHS. Here's the issue: despite last year's good post-strike rise, the BMA says resident doctors' pay has fallen by 23% in real terms since 2008, and they intend to get it back, as do the teachers, whose pay has fallen behind like all the public sector. This is a poorer country, with growth practically stagnant, battered like the rest by world events but uniquely stricken by Brexit too. Public and private sector pay has fallen over the past few years, despite a slight uptick recently. This people know instinctively from how far their money doesn't go: had pay kept growing at pre-financial crash rates, public pay would be 56% higher and the private sector would be 40% better off. These stark figures underlie deep social discontent and distrust of government. No wonder unions strive to bring back better times, calling the doctors' pay offer 'derisory' and 'insulting'. Well, is it? Full Fact's reliable analysis shows foundation year doctors get a £38,831 basic salary while the most qualified resident doctors – 48% of them – get £73,992: the salient fact is many of these doctors will become consultants whose earnings escalate to more than £100,000 a year. Is that a lot or not? What you think depends on what you earn, but very few understand where they stand on the scale. Keep focusing here on a string of numbers, because they are the way we live now. Median pay is £37,430, with half earning more and half earning less. When aggregated across a year, the minimum wage has just risen to £25,396.80. To enter the top 10% of earners you must have a salary of more than £65,000. Estimates vary, but about £180,000 is the threshold for entering the top 1%. It may be no comfort to public sector employees that the prime minister's salary has sharply fallen behind. His £172,153 pay, not quite within the top 1%, should be £305,770 had it kept up with inflation since 2009. Using the PM's pay as a comparator – as anti-public-sector rightwingers do to castigate any public servants earning more – makes little sense: some headteachers running multi-academy trusts can reach £300,000, as can CEOs of large city councils. Are those sums a lot? They are peanuts compared with private sector high-flyers. The opaquely funded TaxPayers' Alliance has a 'public sector rich list' that fails to make comparisons with private top pay. Six-figure earners in the public sphere, running a large school or hospital, have a far more complex task than company CEOs earning millions for single-performance indicators: the bottom line and the share price. New research from the High Pay Centre, funded by the Aberdeen Financial Fairness Trust, just reported that the median FTSE 100 CEO pay is 78 times greater than their median employee's pay. Tesco's CEO on £9.23m makes 431 times more than a median Tesco worker. It's been six years since revealing these pay ratios became mandatory for large listed companies, but high hopes have been dashed because it has changed nothing: exposing gigantic inequality has not shamed boardrooms into reconsidering their values on pay. 'Fair pay' is a slippery concept. Fair pay agreements for every sector are government policy, starting experimentally with social care, for employers and unions to agree legally binding minimum rates and conditions affordable in their industry. They reflect the old wages councils devised by Winston Churchill to protect 'sweated labour', which were later abolished by Margaret Thatcher. When she disempowered unions, workers' pay fell while the top pay, off the leash, shot up stratospherically, where it remains. In the light of all that grotesque distortion of worth, doctors and other valued public servants deserve high rewards. But in the everyday world where growth and pay have long stagnated, people seeing resident doctors' significant pay rise last July may resent them striking again, this time against an NHS at last struggling to its feet. Polly Toynbee is a Guardian columnist

Overlooking sexual harassment against health staff ‘risks patient safety'
Overlooking sexual harassment against health staff ‘risks patient safety'

Western Telegraph

timean hour ago

  • Western Telegraph

Overlooking sexual harassment against health staff ‘risks patient safety'

Medics claim that overlooking these incidents allows other toxic behaviours 'to perpetuate'. It comes as members of the British Medical Association (BMA) called for NHS trusts to include active bystander training – which aims to equip people with the skills to challenge unacceptable conduct – in mandatory training programmes. Delegates at the union's annual representative meeting (ARM) in Liverpool also voted for the BMA to lobby for a national anonymous reporting system for victims of sexual harassment. Dr Helen Neary, co-chairwoman of the BMA consultants committee, said: 'People are bystanders at all levels, and a working culture that turns a blind eye to this behaviour is also a risk to patient safety, enabling other poor behaviours to perpetuate.' The motion urged NHS organisations to probe allegations of sexual misconduct using trained investigators external to the trust. Dr Neary added: 'No one should feel unsafe at work. Yet the appalling truth is that doctors, disproportionately women, are still subject to sexual harassment, abuse and assault in the workplace – often by their fellow doctors. This has to stop. 'Not only is it obviously completely unacceptable and has a devastating impact on victims, but also affects the quality of care and workforce capacity as poor behaviours will do nothing to retain staff in the NHS.' In March, the latest NHS staff survey found one in 12 (8.82%) of workers were the target of unwanted sexual behaviour such as offensive comments, touching and assaults. The proportion was similar to that reported in 2023 (8.79%) when the question was first asked as part of the survey. Last October, NHS England launched a new national sexual misconduct policy framework to ensure trusts had robust policies in place for staff to report incidents. Speaking to delegates at the BMA ARM in Liverpool, Professor Bhairavi Sapra said that while the framework is a 'very welcome first step', it is not mandatory. 'It is up to individual employers to adopt it, and even then, perpetrators can simply move on from one employer to another without accountability for those in positions of power to prevent this behaviour,' she added. 'Worse still, there is no national reporting mechanism. That means if someone wants to report an incident months later in a different workplace, they face an uphill battle, often alone. 'Survivors have told us why they don't come forward. They fear being told they're overreacting. 'They fear retaliation or reputational damage. They fear nothing will change, and sadly, they are not wrong. 'Investigations, when they do happen, are rarely trauma informed, often the process itself can feel like another form of harm.' Dr Neary said: 'As the trade union and professional association for all doctors in the UK – from those beginning their careers as medical students to retirement and beyond – the BMA welcomes the legal obligation placed on the NHS to protect employees from sexual harassment. 'This vote makes some excellent suggestions on how this work can go further, including anonymous reporting, that will encourage those concerned about coming forward to do so, and better equipping doctors on how they can support colleagues when they witness sexual harassment at work.' Prof Sapra also claimed the 'power imbalance' in the medical profession is 'stark', adding: 'Junior staff rely on senior medical staff for training, for references and for their very careers. 'That dependency makes them especially vulnerable and often silent.' An NHS England spokesperson said: 'It is totally unacceptable that NHS staff experience sexual misconduct or harassment at work – this behaviour has no place in the health service, and all organisations must take robust and compassionate action to prevent it. 'The NHS Sexual Safety Charter has been adopted by every Integrated Care Board and NHS Trust in England, which encourages consideration of external, independent investigators in complex or sensitive cases – and all NHS organisations should ensure that those leading these processes are properly trained to handle them with the seriousness and sensitivity they require.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store