Latest news with #LadeSmith
Western Telegraph
25-05-2025
- Health
- Western Telegraph
Passing police detention powers to NHS staff ‘could cause significant harm'
The Royal College of Psychiatrists, the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives, the Royal College of Nursing and Association of Directors of Adult Social Services are among those saying proposed changes to the Mental Health Bill will set a 'dangerous precedent' that puts people at risk. In March, the Government suffered several defeats in the Lords as peers debated ways to modernise mental health legislation. Conservative shadow health minister Lord Kamall proposed a change to the Mental Health Bill so that nurses, doctors and other staff could carry out detentions of patients without the need for police officers to attend incidents. Delegating police powers without proper consultation or planning is likely to disproportionately affect those from minoritised backgrounds and would increase risk to patients and compromise the safety of others Dr Lade Smith, Royal College of Psychiatrists Health minister Baroness Merron told the Lords the Government did not support 'extending police powers in this way' but peers backed the Conservative proposal, resulting in changes to the draft new law. The changes mean powers previously reserved only for police could be transferred to health or other professionals to detain and restrain people in crisis, in public spaces or at home. It comes after concerns have repeatedly been raised by police leaders about the pressures mental health issues are placing on policing. Launching a joint statement, major health organisations have expressed 'grave concerns' and argue the 'police play a crucial role in carrying out many tasks that medical practitioners cannot perform, such as assessing whether a home is safe to enter'. They said 'reducing police involvement in mental health emergencies could lead to serious risks for both patients and clinicians.' The joint statement said wording accompanying the amendment 'states that 'the proposed amendments would remove the need for the presence of police at mental health incidents in the absence of any risk.' Like mental health services, the police are facing significant workload pressures. It is simply logical and now vital that we work together to develop more effective ways of responding to mental health crises Dr Lade Smith, Royal College of Psychiatrists 'This is misleading as instances of detentions under the Mental Health Act where there is no risk are almost non-existent. 'It also negates the fact that the mere presence of uniformed officers can ensure that an otherwise risky situation remains contained and safe.' Transferring police powers to health professionals also risks damaging their 'therapeutic relationships' with patients, the signatories said. This has the 'double-effect' of hindering the ability to provide care, while also deterring people from seeking help from services where they might be forcibly detained, they added. The organisations said the changes 'have not been tested' with health professionals or discussed with patients. Their statement said: 'We are keen to work with police and Government to find ways to improve responses to mental health crises to ensure the safety of all professionals involved, patients and the community.' Extending police powers to other professionals would represent a major shift in the roles, responsibilities and practice for health and care staff and would place additional resource on an already stretched NHS ... Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson Dr Lade Smith, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, said delegating police powers to health professionals 'would not be within the spirit' of the proposed reforms to the Mental Health Act. She added: 'It is well known that at times, people experiencing a mental health crisis cannot be safely reached and cared for without the assistance of the police. 'Delegating police powers without proper consultation or planning is likely to disproportionately affect those from minoritised backgrounds and would increase risk to patients and compromise the safety of others. It sets a dangerous precedent. 'Like mental health services, the police are facing significant workload pressures. 'It is simply logical and now vital that we work together to develop more effective ways of responding to mental health crises.' It also raises questions around whether it is right for the health and social care professionals to have powers to use reasonable force which could have implications for patient, public and staff safety, as well as potentially damaging the relationships clinicians have with patients Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson A Department of Health and Social Care spokesperson said: 'Extending police powers to other professionals would represent a major shift in the roles, responsibilities and practice for health and care staff and would place additional resource on an already stretched NHS at a time where we are trying to rebuild a health service fit for the future. 'It also raises questions around whether it is right for the health and social care professionals to have powers to use reasonable force which could have implications for patient, public and staff safety, as well as potentially damaging the relationships clinicians have with patients. 'We are grateful to health and social care stakeholders for their in-depth engagement on this complex issue.' Signatories to the joint statement are: – Association of Ambulance Chief Executives (AACE) – Association of Directors of Adult Social Services (ADASS) – Approved Mental Health Professional (AMHP) Leads Network – British Association of Social Workers (BASW) – British Medical Association (BMA) – College of Paramedics – Royal College of Emergency Medicine (RCEM) – Royal College of Nursing (RCN) – Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych)
New Statesman
22-05-2025
- Health
- New Statesman
Symposium: Are we over-diagnosing mental health conditions?
Clockwise from top left: Lade Smith, Suzanne O'Sullivan, Minesh Patel, Joanna Moncrieff, Brian Dow Britain is in the grip of a mental health reckoning. Once taboo, the language of anxiety, depression, trauma and neurodivergence is now part of everyday conversation. Public campaigns have encouraged us to speak openly about mental well-being. But as awareness has surged, so too has a thornier question: are we diagnosing too much, too readily? In March, Health Secretary Wes Streeting argued that we are. 'Not every feeling of sadness is depression, not every feeling of worry is anxiety,' he said, warning that Britain is at risk of 'over-diagnosing' mental health conditions, especially in young people. His comments sparked fierce debate. Is the surge in diagnoses a long-overdue recognition of hidden suffering? Or are we at risk of medicalising life's ordinary struggles? The numbers are striking. Demand for NHS mental health services has more than doubled since 2017. Yet questions are growing over whether those services – already overwhelmed – are being diverted from those in greatest need. Are we mistaking everyday emotions for clinical disorders? Or does broader diagnosis simply reflect how far we've come in confronting mental illness? This is not just a clinical debate – it is a political one. The way we define and diagnose mental illness shapes the policies and resources that follow: whether that's school counselling budgets, workplace well-being schemes, GP referral pathways, or access to talking therapies. Over-diagnosis risks diluting resources and excessive medicalisation; under-diagnosing leaves silent suffering unaddressed. While one finds a range of views, even among our experts, there is one clear consensus: the system itself is in dire need of support. Dr Lade Smith CBE, President, Royal College of Psychiatrists It is no surprise that there has been an increase in mental illness diagnoses. Risk factors associated with mental ill-health – financial, housing and food insecurity, loneliness and isolation – have increased over the past decade. We have seen a 20 per cent increase in the number of people classified as disabled because of anxiety and depression – both eminently treatable conditions, both driven by social determinants. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe With earlier intervention and assertive treatment, anxiety and depression can get better within months – long before a person's condition deteriorates into disability. However, the number of people waiting for mental healthcare has grown by 29 per cent in the last two years and now stands at 1.6 million. Moreover, severe mental illnesses, such as bipolar disorder and schizophrenia, are under-diagnosed or diagnosed far too late. This is particularly important for younger people, because 75 per cent of all mental health conditions arise before the age of 24. With illnesses like bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, it can take up to ten years before people receive a diagnosis and treatment, significantly impacting them achieving their potential. During this time of no diagnosis, their illness is likely to curtail their ability to complete education, function at work and form healthy relationships. They may even become homeless or come into contact with the criminal justice system. It is essential that people with mental illness have access to an evidence-based comprehensive assessment from a trained psychiatrist or qualified mental health professional, which formulates their problem, clarifies their diagnosis and provides a package of care and treatment to enable that person to recover and have the best quality of life they can. When misdiagnosis does occur, it is largely driven by people being left to diagnose themselves or being assessed by those with no or inadequate specialist skills and training. We must be careful not to encourage stigma and discrimination. People with mental illness are not 'fake sick'; the UK's productivity has not been undermined by over-diagnosis, but by poor access to timely and effective care. The Darzi investigation noted that mental illness is 20 per cent of the disease burden in the UK but receives 10 per cent of health funding. The treatment gap created by chronic under-resourcing results in a failure to quickly ascertain who is ill and who is not, and to assertively treat those who actually need it. Over-diagnosis is far less of an issue than lack of access to good-quality timely assessment and treatment by well-qualified mental health staff. Dr Suzanne O'Sullivan, Consultant neurologist, University College London Any discussion about over-diagnosis needs to start with a clarification of the meaning of the term. Over-diagnosis should never be read to imply a person is not struggling or in need of support. It simply asks if medicalising that suffering is the best way forward for them. Mental health conditions don't come with biological markers, so nobody can truly identify the point at which psychological distress moves from being part of the normal human experience into being a medical concern. Therefore, over-diagnosis can only be recognised by looking at how the growing number of people with a mental health diagnosis are benefitting in the long term. If the diagnoses are appropriate, they should lead somewhere positive and allow an easier progression through life. With that definition in mind, it feels impossible to say that mental health conditions are not over-diagnosed. Consider how the prevalence of autism has grown from affecting one in 2,500 children decades ago to more than one in 100 children today. More inclusive diagnosis promised to improve long-term mental health and well-being for young people. And yet, mental health diagnoses in adults, particularly young adults, are also steadily growing. This is the very definition of over-diagnosis — more early diagnosis, but no downstream improvement in well-being. Worse, these statistics suggest that the growing population of young people diagnosed as neurodivergent may actually be faring worse in adulthood than any population that has gone before. A medical label is not inert. It has a power all of its own to make people sick. When you tell a child that they have a neurodevelopmental condition, you risk encouraging that child to focus on what they cannot do. It could create the impression that the difficulties that child is experiencing cannot be overcome. You lower others' expectations for that child. The diagnosis can impact identity formation and become a self-fulfilling prophecy. Diagnostic labels make social and psychological struggles seem set in stone, which gets in the way of an examination of life that might have a more lasting positive impact on well-being. A thirst for finding mental health diagnoses in milder forms and the growing number of mental health awareness campaigns risk pathologising ordinary differences and encouraging people to worry unduly about the natural highs and lows of mood. We need to learn how to recognise and support struggling people, and children in particular, without medical labels because the current system is not working. Better lives for children, social change, is how you create healthier, happier adults. Suzanne O'Sullivan is the author of 'The Age of Diagnosis: Sickness, Health and Why Medicine Has Gone Too Far' Minesh Patel, Associate director, Mind It's hard to imagine that if the rates of cancer screening and diagnosis went up through public campaigns encouraging people to be aware of symptoms, to not suffer in silence and to seek support, it would not be a cause for celebration. But when it comes to mental health, that's where we are. And for many, it's treated as evidence that 'mental health culture has gone too far'. This is despite the fact that the threshold for a diagnosis hasn't changed. Several senior politicians from across the spectrum have made the argument about over-diagnosis or self-diagnosis, or a variation of it, in the last year. But I think, especially when it comes to the interventions of politicians, it's important to consider the context in which the debate is taking place. We are talking about a time of tight public finances, a rising welfare bill, and increasing numbers of people unable to work due to mental health problems. We are living in the shadow of a once-in-a-generation pandemic and cost-of-living crisis, both of which we know, from the people we speak to every day, have been substantial drivers of mental health problems. There are 1.6 million people on mental health waiting lists, with those on low incomes experiencing some of the worst health outcomes. While it has become convenient, or in some cases politically expedient, to deny that the scale of rising mental health problems is real, such denials inevitably lead to policymakers not pursuing a proper appreciation of what might be driving such rises. This increases the burden on both the healthcare system and patients, as the earlier the intervention, the more treatable these issues become. Our starting point has to be one of understanding the factors behind increasing levels of poor mental health and addressing the delays in people getting support. The solution certainly does not lie in making claims about over-diagnosis, which have little evidence to support them. This is especially the case when many of the people experiencing poor mental health are already facing the sharpest impacts of poverty and will be those hit hardest by proposed welfare cuts. It's clear we still have a long way to go when it comes to equal treatment of physical and mental health, a point made more real by the proportion of the NHS budget going to mental health falling next year. What's needed now is a conversation that is careful not to stigmatise people's real experiences and does not undermine the expertise of medical professionals. It must instead focus on how we can best create a mentally healthier society – one where fewer people experience poor mental health in the first place. Joanna Moncrieff, Professor of critical and social psychiatry, UCL, and NHS psychiatrist With the increasing diagnosis of mental health problems, we are medicalising a variety of human situations that are not medical problems. This has negative consequences for individuals and for society. Diagnosis is a medical activity. It implies that people have an underlying biological abnormality that is the cause of their symptoms. This is not the case with mental health problems. When someone is diagnosed with depression, anxiety or ADHD, this is simply a description of their problems. It is a label. It is not an explanation. It does not mean there is an underlying biological deficiency. The widespread belief that depression is due to a chemical imbalance has never been demonstrated, for example, and biological mechanisms have not been established for any other mental health condition. As a result, the process of making a mental health diagnosis is highly subjective. It depends on the beliefs and circumstances of the individual doctor and patient, and it is influenced by general social and economic conditions. Yet, giving people a mental health diagnosis creates the impression that there is an underlying biological problem. This is harmful because it results in people feeling pessimistic and powerless to change anything. It can lead people to limit themselves. It also results in unnecessary exposure to medical interventions, such as antidepressants. Despite being widely used, there is little evidence that antidepressants are helpful, and plenty of evidence that they can have serious adverse effects. Moreover, giving people a diagnosis risks overlooking the real problems. It focuses everyone's attention on the symptoms of the condition, rather than the problems that caused them originally. Overwhelmingly, these problems are social, such as poverty, unemployment, relationship problems, loneliness and lack of meaning. Diagnosing the understandable consequences of these features of our society as medical conditions inhibits social change. It enables politicians to ignore the inequality, insecurity and social fragmentation that have resulted from neoliberal political and economic policies, and which cause so much misery and stress. In the short term, medicalisation provides financial security for some through the benefits system, but this could be (and in some cases is) done differently, on the basis of need. In the long term, medicalisation perpetuates the system that is causing our mental health crisis in the first place. Joanna Moncrieff is the author of 'Chemically Imbalanced: The Making and Unmaking of the Serotonin Myth' Brian Dow, Deputy chief executive, Rethink Mental Illness There is lots of talk about the over-diagnosis of mental health conditions. But for most people living with mental illness, the reality is often a struggle for a timely diagnosis and access to the right treatment. Our charity's research found the majority don't receive support quickly enough, with four in five experiencing a deterioration in their mental health while they waited. The consequences are serious: crisis, suicide attempts and lost livelihoods. Of course, as in any area of medicine, misdiagnoses do occur. Some people in recovery may come to feel that a diagnosis no longer serves them. And yes, we should be doing much more to prevent people from falling out of education or work, rather than simply writing them off. On the other hand, a diagnosis is often the only way to access life-saving support. And we don't suggest that cancer awareness-raising campaigns are problematic because most people who get checked won't have cancer. Quite the opposite: we encourage people to seek help, knowing that early intervention saves lives. So why discourage the same approach for mental illness, when the effects can be just as devastating? This is a complex issue that requires nuance, not oversimplification. Right now, there's no compelling evidence of over-diagnosis, but there is ample evidence of a rising tide of mental distress and under-resourced services failing to meet demand. Recent research from the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that mental health difficulties, particularly among young people, are increasing. Mental illness has never reached parity with physical health in either investment or priority. Our analysis of NHS data shows someone is eight times more likely to wait over 18 months for mental health treatment than for physical healthcare. The government's target for 92 per cent of patients to start treatment within 18 weeks does not currently include any commitment to tackling waits for mental health services. Against this backdrop, we must be extremely cautious we don't deter people from seeking help. We also need to do more to tackle the drivers of poor mental health, especially given that mental illness often begins young and becomes entrenched without support. That means investing in school-based support, housing, tackling poverty and reducing isolation. This is not soft policy; it's a pragmatic way to reduce pressure on an already overburdened system. While different conditions require different responses, all mental illness, from mild to severe, is distressing to the individual. What matters is delivering the right support, in the right place, at the right time. The question isn't whether we're over-diagnosing. It's whether we're doing enough to help. Related
Epoch Times
15-05-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
Royal College of Psychiatrists Announces It ‘Cannot Support' Assisted Suicide Bill
A leading group of psychiatrists has said it cannot support Labour MP Kim Leadbeater's assisted suicide bill, owing to there being 'too many unanswered questions' about the safeguarding of people with mental illness. On Wednesday, the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) raised concerns about the ambiguity in the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, which applies to England and Wales. These concerns include uncertainty around when clinicians should invoke existing mental health laws to support terminally ill individuals seeking to end their lives, while still ensuring the protection and treatment of those at risk of suicide. The RCPsych maintains a neutral stance on the principle of assisted suicide, but the bill's rejection is likely a setback for supporters. An amendment had proposed a greater role for psychiatrists in evaluating assisted suicide applications, which sponsors viewed as a way to strengthen 'safeguards.' Dr. Lade Smith CBE, president of the RCPsych, said that after extensive engagement with members and its assisted suicide working group, 'the RCPsych has reached the conclusion that we are not confident in the Terminally Ill Adults Bill in its current form, and we therefore cannot support the Bill as it stands.' 'Not a Treatment Option' In its press release, the professional medical body outlined several flaws it found in the bill, which it urged MPs to consider before its return to the House of Commons on Friday for the Report Stage debate and Third Reading. This includes the lack of clarity in the bill's wording on whether assisted suicide is a 'treatment option.' Related Stories 3/27/2025 2/27/2025 'Assisted dying/assisted suicide (AD/AS) is not a treatment,' the RCPsych said, stating explicitly that 'AD/AS does not aim to improve a person's health and its intended consequence is death.' 'The Bill does not specify whether AD/AS is considered a treatment option and this ambiguity has major implications in law in England and Wales. Should this Bill proceed, it should be explicit that AD/AS is not a treatment option,' it added. The professionals also highlighted the omission of a mandatory holistic assessment of unmet needs, which could determine whether a terminally-ill person's desire to end their own life is driven by other, treatable factors, such as intolerable pain, inadequate care, or financial hardship. Smith said on this point that it is 'integral to a psychiatrist's role to consider how people's unmet needs affect their desire to live. The Bill, as proposed, does not honour this role, or require other clinicians involved in the process to consider whether someone's decision to die might change with better support.' Scotland Backs Bill The announcement came the day after members of the Scottish Parliament (MSPs) backed the general principles of a similar bill north of the border. Holyrood People take part in a demonstration organised by campaign group Dignity in Dying outside the Houses of Parliament in support of the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill in Westminster, London, on Nov. 29, 2024. Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire Pro-assisted suicide group Dignity in Dying Scotland called the vote 'a watershed moment for compassion.' However, pro-life group Christian Action Research and Education (CARE) Stuart Weir, head of CARE in Scotland, added that the bill will undermine suicide prevention in Scotland, and that vulnerable and marginalised people will be most at risk. Leadbeater 'Pleased' by Scotland's Vote Leadbeater Labour MP Kim Leadbeater in her office in the Houses of Parliament, London, on Nov. 11, 2024. Stefan Rousseau/PA Wire The Labour MP for Spen Valley had said at the time she proposed her Private Members' Bill that it 'will contain the strictest protections and safeguards of any legislation anywhere in the world.' However, she and her bill
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Health
- Yahoo
Royal College of Psychiatrists opposes Assisted Dying Bill
The Royal College of Psychiatrists has said it does not support the assisted dying Bill. Dr Lade Smith, its president, said the organisation remained neutral on the principle but had a number of concerns about the legislation in its current form. It found 'a number of issues' including the possibility a terminally ill patient could be suffering from a 'very treatable' mental disorder. Dr Smith said issues including the fact there is currently no requirement to inform family members have been raised 'repeatedly' with parliamentarians but have not yet been addressed. The move is significant because, under the Bill's current stipulations, a panel including a psychiatrist would oversee assisted dying cases. Speaking ahead of the Bill's return to the Commons on Friday, Dr Smith told BBC's Newsnight: 'After extensive consultation and consideration we have concluded that we just cannot support this Bill.' Detailing how a terminal cancer diagnosis could trigger a depressive disorder which could actually be treated, she said: 'People feel like ending their lives. 'But when you treat that depression, that wish to end their life goes. 'So there needs to be a requirement to assess whether or not a person who's wishing to end their life has actually got a mental disorder that could be treated, because that's different to someone who may be deciding to end their life when they don't have a mental disorder.' Dr Smith said 'unmet needs' such as pain, difficulty with their housing, finances and employment may make a patient feel 'lonely and isolated'. In November last year, MPs voted 330 to 275 to legalise assisted dying, in a historic vote. The Government did not support or oppose the Bill, with MPs able to vote according to their conscience. However, since then there have been a number of amendments including the fact applications will no longer be assessed by a High Court judge, but a panel of experts including psychiatrists. So far just two MPs – Lee Anderson and Rupert Lowe – have publicly declared they will change their vote at the next stage. On the fact family members do not have to be informed, Dr Smith said: 'If family members could support, that could change someone's view. 'Frankly as doctors we would like some guidance around whether or not this is that the parliamentarians consider this to be a medical treatment.' She added that the Mental Capacity Act was not designed to assess the capacity of patients in a decision on ending their life as it is 'irreversible'. Elsewhere, the Royal College of GPs also warned its members have real concerns about the implications of the Bill. Of the more than 1,000 who replied to a questionnaire about it sent by the BBC, more than 500 said they were opposed to the Bill. It comes as Scotland moved a step closer to introducing the controversial legislation on Tuesday. MSPs supported the principles of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill by 70 votes to 56, allowing it to clear its first parliamentary hurdle at Holyrood. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
Belfast Telegraph
14-05-2025
- Health
- Belfast Telegraph
Leadbeater praises MSPs' assisted dying vote amid warning Bill is ‘inadequate'
Ms Leadbeater, the MP behind the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill, said there are injustices in the current ban on assisted dying, adding that MSPs had 'listened to the voices of those with personal experience of those injustices'. Holyrood voted by 70 votes to 56 in favour of the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill on Tuesday. Ms Leadbeater said: 'I'm pleased that after a lengthy, constructive and compassionate debate, the Scottish Parliament has voted in principle in favour of changing the law to address the injustices in the current ban on assisted dying. 'MSPs listened to the voices of those with personal experience of those injustices and concluded that the status quo cannot be defended any longer.' But ahead of Ms Leadbeater's Bill returning to the Commons on Friday, the RCPsych said it could not support it in its current form, highlighting 'serious concerns' about the safeguarding of people with mental illness. The college said it has 'unanswered questions' and warned of a shortage of consultant psychiatrists to meet the demands of the Bill. Dr Lade Smith, president of the RCPsych, said: 'After extensive engagement with our members, and with the expertise of our assisted dying/assisted suicide working group, the RCPsych has reached the conclusion that we are not confident in the Terminally Ill Adults Bill in its current form, and we therefore cannot support the Bill as it stands. 'It's integral to a psychiatrist's role to consider how people's unmet needs affect their desire to live. The Bill, as proposed, does not honour this role, or require other clinicians involved in the process to consider whether someone's decision to die might change with better support. 'We are urging MPs to look again at our concerns for this once-in-a-generation Bill and prevent inadequate assisted dying/assisted suicide proposals from becoming law.' The college also said the physical effects of a mental disorder, such as anorexia or dementia, should not make a person eligible for assisted dying. Dr Annabel Price, lead for Ms Leadbeater's Bill at the RCPsych, said: 'The college has spent decades focused on preventing people from dying by suicide. 'A significant part of our engagement on this Bill to date has been to point out that people with terminal physical illnesses are more likely to have depression. 'Terminal illness is a risk factor for suicide, and unmet needs can make a person's life feel unbearable. But we know that if a person's situation is improved or their symptoms treated, then their wish to end their life sooner often changes. 'The Bill does not specify whether assisted dying/assisted suicide is a treatment option – an ambiguity that has major implications in law. 'It is our view that these proposals should not be considered a treatment as assisted dying/assisted suicide does not aim to improve a person's health. Furthermore, the Mental Capacity Act in England and Wales offers no framework for assessing such a decision. 'This Bill proposes that psychiatrists be involved through assessments of mental capacity as part of routine psychiatric practice and in a safeguarding role on a panel. But mental health services do not currently have the resource required to meet a new range of demands. 'If this Bill proceeds, any role a psychiatrist plays in an assisted dying/assisted suicide process should be consistent with the core duties of the profession, including determining whether someone's wish to die can be remedied or treated.' Meanwhile, research conducted by the BBC revealed a deep division on the issue amongst family doctors in England. In a survey sent to 5,000 doctors, 1,000 responded to questions on assisted dying. Of those, 500 were opposed to assisted dying laws, while around 400 were in favour. Professor Kamila Hawthorne, chair of the Royal College of GPs, told the broadcaster the results showed doctors had 'real concerns about the practical and legal implications of a change in the law on assisted dying'. 'These must be acknowledged and addressed, so that any legislation is watertight,' she said.
