NHS doctors urge UK MPs to reject assisted dying bill

Over 1,000 doctors have written to Members of Parliament in the UK urging them to vote against the assisted dying bill, describing it as a serious threat to both patients and healthcare professionals.

The bill, scheduled for a final parliamentary vote on June 20, would permit terminally ill patients in England and Wales with a prognosis of six months or less to choose to end their lives.

A similar bill is currently progressing through the Scottish Parliament.

However, NHS doctors from across the country have expressed significant concerns in a letter to MPs.

Among the prominent signatories are Sir John Burn, a geneticist renowned for his cancer research; Sir Shakeel Qureshi, honored for his contributions to pediatric cardiology; Professor Aileen Keel, former deputy chief medical officer for Scotland; and Baroness Finlay, a Welsh palliative care expert and member of the House of Lords.

The letter also includes signatures from multiple doctors awarded OBEs, MBEs, and a CBE.

While acknowledging the need for discussions on end-of-life care, the doctors argue that this bill is not the solution.

They highlight that important perspectives from medical professionals, disabled individuals, and other marginalized groups have not been sufficiently considered.

The letter warns the bill could exacerbate inequalities, lacks adequate safeguards, and, in their collective opinion, is unsafe labeling it “deeply flawed.”

Professor Colin Rees, part of the Royal College of Physicians assisted dying working group, described the bill as possibly the most significant healthcare legislation in decades, with far-reaching consequences.

He noted that many doctors are concerned that MPs are not fully hearing the medical community’s views.

Even doctors who are neutral or supportive of assisted dying principles share concerns about the bill’s safety and its ability to protect patients, families, and healthcare workers.

One major issue raised is the difficulty in identifying patients vulnerable to coercion. The letter highlights risks for women, domestic abuse victims, and elderly patients.

It also cautions that the bill may increase social inequalities, as those lacking resources for comfortable end-of-life care might feel pressured to choose assisted dying.

“People struggling with costs like heating, care, or wishing to preserve their assets for family are especially at risk of choosing death if presented with assisted dying as an option,” the letter states.

Supporting this, data from Oregon’s 2024 Annual Report on Dying with Dignity revealed that 9.3% of assisted deaths were motivated by financial concerns.

Concerns have also been raised about the reliability of medical prognoses.

The letter highlights research showing that doctors’ predictions are incorrect about 40% of the time, meaning patients might choose assisted death prematurely, potentially losing valuable months or years of life.

The bill also poses risks to families, as it does not mandate doctors to inform relatives.

The letter notes, “A close family member may remain unaware until they are contacted to arrange the collection of their loved one’s body,” with no clear way for relatives to challenge or question the decision.

Additionally, the letter discusses the impact on healthcare professionals.

Drawing on evidence from the Netherlands, it warns that doctors may feel pressured to participate in assisted deaths against their personal beliefs, simply to support their patients.