We support the assisted dying bill because of our medical backgrounds, not despite them
4 min read
The assisted dying bill is not about giving up on life, but about offering dignity at the end of it. Its safeguards do just that.
Few issues test the boundaries of law, medicine and morality as deeply as assisted dying. It is a debate of the head and the heart; asking us to reconcile our instinct to protect life with the compassion to relieve suffering. As Parliament prepares to debate the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill again this Friday, we face an opportunity to align the law with modern values, clinical reality and our moral responsibilities.
As parliamentarians with clinical backgrounds, we support this bill not despite our medical training, but because of it. We know what good care looks like. We also know its limits. And we believe it is both morally and democratically right that patients facing the end of life should be trusted, within a framework of safeguards, to make their own informed decisions.
This bill does not promote death. It offers a carefully bounded legal framework for terminally ill, mentally competent adults to access life-ending medication; only under strict conditions and with the approval of independent doctors. It is not about giving up on life but about offering dignity at the end of it.
The safeguards are clear. Two doctors must confirm that the patient has six months or less to live and has the capacity to make an informed, voluntary decision. A multi-disciplinary panel must approve the request before medication is prescribed. There is no fast track, no loophole. The final act, the administration of the medication, must be undertaken by the patient, if and when they choose.
Some colleagues may have concerns, but many are quashed by the government’s own impact assessment. It confirmed that laws limited to terminally ill people do not expand over time. And even after 10 years, just 0.7 per cent of all deaths are projected to be assisted; a far cry from the claims of mass uptake.
Another misconception is that this is a debate between assisted dying and palliative care. In reality, they are complementary. Palliative care will always remain the bedrock of our end-of-life services. However, even the most outstanding care cannot always relieve suffering. This bill ensures that those who need more than palliative care can have options, not just pain.
Amendments made at Committee reinforce this. One requires that doctors discussing assisted dying must also offer information on palliative and psychological support. Another, backed by Munira Wilson MP and Marie Curie as well as Kim Leadbeater herself, strengthens the commitment to high-quality end-of-life care. This is not a choice between paths. It is about ensuring the full spectrum of compassionate options.
Medical opinion has also shifted. A decade ago, medical bodies opposed law change. Today, the British Medical Association, Royal College of Physicians and Royal College of General Practitioners are all neutral on the principle of assisted dying — reflecting the growing support among their members. The Royal College of Psychiatrists, too, while it has raised concerns about some aspects of this specific Bill — many of which are addressed by changes already made to it, such as a mandatory referral to a psychiatrist if there is any doubt about a person's capacity — remains neutral on the issue as a whole. In Scotland, more psychiatrists backed assisted dying in its membership survey than opposed it. It's right that medical bodies are engaging in this debate and representing the range of views their members hold. But, ultimately, this is a decision for society, one that must reflect the realities patients face.
Public opinion is even clearer. Polling shows strong and consistent support, with 75 per cent across the country backing law change. This is a mainstream concern rooted in personal experience. Many of us know someone who has died in distress or felt forced to consider drastic options; some have been our own patients. The current law criminalises compassion, driving people abroad or into secrecy. That cannot continue unchallenged.
Some say the timing is not right. Yet change is happening. The Scottish Parliament has just voted to advance its own Assisted Dying Bill. The Isle of Man has passed legislation. Jersey is preparing to do the same. These are not rushed moves, but responses to public will and modern care standards.
We should do likewise. This bill compels no one. It does not undermine safeguards. However, it offers a legal, accountable route for those facing the end of their life, with no hope of recovery.
The debate on assisted dying will never be simple. Nor should it be. However, complexity cannot become an excuse for inaction. We have a chance now to legislate with care, with humanity, and with integrity. To respond to evidence. To honour compassion. And to give dignity to those for whom time is running out.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst is the Conservative MP for Solihull West & Shirley and Dr Beccy Cooper is the Labour MP for Worthing West
