A citizens’ jury has overwhelmingly backed the legalisation of assisted dying for terminally ill people after hearing from experts over a period of eight weeks.
Twenty out of 28 jurors based in England agreed the law should be changed, with seven disagreeing and one person saying they were undecided.
The conclusions of the citizens’ jury were published with the Westminster parliament expected to debate the issue in the coming months. The Labour peer Charlie Falconer, a former lord chancellor, has published a Lords’ private member’s bill to legalise assisted dying, and the Labour MP Jake Richards is considering bringing forward a bill after coming 11th in a ballot last week. Keir Starmer has backed a free vote on the issue.
Citizens’ juries are a way of testing public opinion on complex issues. They are considered more nuanced than polling.
The jury on assisted dying was commissioned by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCOB), an independent policy and research centre that aims to put ethics at the centre of decisions regarding health.
It said the group had provided a representative sample of the population both in terms of demographics and attitudes towards assisted dying. Opinion polls have shown a majority of the public is in favour of the legalisation of assisted dying for terminally ill people.
Thirty jurors were selected from 7,000 invitations sent to randomly selected households across England. They met between April and June, spending a total of about 24 hours exploring and deliberating on the issues. Two of the jurors were unable to take part in the final session due to illness.
The jury backed assisted dying for people who have a terminal condition and have the capacity to make their own decision. They supported both assisted suicide, where healthcare professionals would prescribe lethal drugs to be taken by eligible patients, and voluntary euthanasia, where a healthcare professional would administer lethal drugs.
The top three reasons given for supporting a change in the law were to stop pain, having the option to end your own life and knowing you could die with dignity.
Jurors were asked to consider if the law should be changed and what any law on assisted dying should include and exclude. If the law was not changed, the jury was asked if it had other recommendations.
On the latter, nearly all jurors said the act of helping a family member or friend to travel to Dignitas, the Swiss clinic that offers assisted dying to citizens of other countries, should be decriminalised. They also wanted more funding to improve NHS palliative care.
The top reasons for not backing a change in the law were that it could be used for the wrong reasons and that it could be misinterpreted or misused.
More than two dozen jurisdictions around the world – including New Zealand, Canada, Switzerland, Belgium, 10 states in the US and all six states in Australia – allow some form of assisted dying.
Bills to legalise assisted dying are now going through parliaments in the Isle of Man, Jersey and Scotland.
Anne Kerr, the chair of the NCOB, said: “The jury findings indicate broad support for a change in the law in England, with some important details about what this should involve. This is a significant finding that will be valuable for policymakers who are considering whether and how to take forward legislative change.”
Sarah Wootton, the chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said: “It is inarguable that the public wants this reform to happen … When MPs come to debate an assisted dying bill for the first time in almost a decade they must consider whether they will answer the call for compassion, or preserve an unpopular and unsafe status quo.”
Gordon Macdonald, the CEO of Care Not Killing, said: “At a time when we see how quickly safeguards in countries like Canada, Belgium and the Netherlands have been eroded so disabled people and those with mental health problems, even eating disorders, are now being euthanised, I would strongly urge the government to focus on fixing our broken palliative care system … rather than discussing again this dangerous and ideological policy.”
