We are a group of doctors oppposed to the legalisation of assisted suicide and euthanasia

Increasingly the term Physician Assisted Dying (PAD) is referred to in public debate. PAD includes:

  • DOCTOR-ASSISTED SUICIDE: prescribing a lethal dose of medication at the patient’s request, for them to self-administer.

  • EUTHANASIA: Prescribing and administering a lethal dose of medication to a patient. This may be voluntary (at the patient’s request) or involuntary (without the patient’s consent).

During the latest consultations of their memberships by medical representative bodies, the RCGP defined assisted dying as assisted suicide, the RCP as physician assisted suicide and the BMA as both physician-administered euthanasia and physician assisted suicide.

The current situation

The Royal College of General Practitioners remains opposed to assisted suicide

The RCGP survey results showed that opposition to a change in the law was the most favoured option chosen by 47% of those surveyed. This maintained the position of opposition to assisted suicide after a consultation in 2013 had the same finding.

The Royal College of Physicians does not support a change in the law

Following a move to a neutral position on physician assisted suicide in 2019, it issued a clarification in 2020.

"So that there can be no doubt, the RCP clarifies that it does not support a change in the law to permit assisted dying at the present time.... The majority of doctors would be unwilling to participate actively in assisted dying if the law were changed to permit it, with only 25% indicating a willingness to do so."

The BMA surveyed its members on assisted suicide and euthanasia in February 2020.

We know that deciding which way to vote will have been difficult for many. The results of the BMA survey show significant changes from earlier opinion polls, although just under half of doctors are not BMA members and only 19% of invitations provided useable responses. 40% of respondents indicated support for a change in the BMA position to allow doctor-assisted suicide.  40% of respondents opposed a change in the BMA position on administering drugs to end life.

Assisting suicide and euthanasia are not compatible with the Hippocratic tradition of medical ethics. This is reflected in the current BMA position which is to be opposed to assisted suicide and euthanasia.

This position will be debated at the BMA’s Annual Representatives Meeting in June 2021, and the results of the poll will inform, but not determine the outcome. We are urging that the meeting be fully informed about the detail of the vote:

It’s one thing to be in favour of a position when it’s in the abstract; when it’s merely an academic, theoretical or intellectual consideration.
It’s another thing entirely when you actually work in the areas of medicine where you are the doctor who would be administering the lethal injection or prescribing the lethal drugs.
It’s interesting to note that the BMA survey reveals that those closest to the coal face have the most concerns.


of palliative care respondents oppose a change in the BMA position to allow doctor-assisted suicide.


of palliative care respondents support a change in the BMA position to allow doctor-assisted suicide.

Did you know?

  • Just 36% of doctors were willing to participate in doctor-assisted suicide and 26% in euthanasia.


  • Doctors most involved with end-of-life care were most opposed to assisted dying. (Palliative medicine, Clinical Oncology, Geriatric Medicine, General Practice.)


  • Medical students, doctors without a license to practice and those doctors least involved in end-of-life care were the most supportive. (Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, ENT, Radiology, Orthopaedic Surgery)


We urge the BMA to listen to those at the coal-face of end of life care and to consider the evidence from the small number of territories that have change their laws.

  • Safeguards are illusionary – in Belgium and the Netherlands, laws designed for terminally ill mentally competent adults have been used to euthanise non-mentally competent adults, people with mental health problems, disabled people and children.
  • No evidence of improvements to palliative care – In Canada far from seeing improvements to Palliative Care, euthanasia advocates have highlighted $150 million worth of savings.
  • Right to die becomes a duty to die – in the US State of Oregon, six in ten ending their lives cite fear of being a burden on their families and carers as a reason, while 7.4% cite financial worries as a concern.
  • The Threat to Medical Conscience – In Canada a hospice which was unwilling to provide euthanasia was threatened with losing its contract and hence funding by local health authority. In Belgium a law has been passed which forces doctors with conscientious objections to refer patients on to those willing to end patients lives. Hospices can no longer make it a contractual obligation for staff not to euthanise patients and they must allow doctors on to the premises to perform euthanasia even if the hospice itself oppose this practice.
  • The Werther Effect – Studies from Oregon and the Netherlands show legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia might increase suicides in the general population

If the BMA drops its opposition to assisted suicide or euthanasia, this will be used by ‘right to die’ campaigners to put pressure on politicians to change the law. If that happens, there will then be a duty on doctors to inform patients about their right to request assisted suicide or euthanasia as part of all end of life care.

What message would this send to the vulnerable patients we look after day to day?

"Few Canadian doctors foresaw that 'going neutral' would guarantee the arrival of euthanasia, or that promises of a shot in the arm for palliative care would be forgotten. Even fewer realised they would have no option but to cooperate with providing death on demand. It has become all too easy to end patients’ lives. Learn from our mistakes."

Family Physician and Professor
Vancouver, Canada
(BMJ 2019;364:l412)

Reasons for concern



Patients with frailty, terminal illness or cognitive impairment may have a low view of their own value and importance to others.

If we change the law to allow assisted suicide, we acquiesce with the view that some lives don’t deserve full legal protection. Patients with chronic and terminal illnesses are vulnerable to depression and suicidal ideation, but with support can be helped to move to a better place and view the future with hope.

The 1961 Suicide Act prohibits actively encouraging or assisting someone else to commit suicide in England & Wales, because as a society we recognise that all lives matter. In Scotland, assisting suicide and euthanasia are prohibited by the common law of homicide.




Assisted suicide or euthanasia should not become part of medical care. Doctors should not administer lethal doses of medication or prescribe it for their patients with the intent of ending life.

Trust is the foundation of the doctor-patient relationship. Modern medicine traces its roots back to ancient Greece, where doctors in the Hippocratic tradition distinguished themselves from charlatans by taking an oath never to administer poison. There must be clarity that a doctor will always intend to do no harm.

Assisting suicide has been prohibited by all international codes of medical ethics since then, including being forcefully repudiated by the World Medical Association in September 2019.




Patient safety is paramount in clinical practice.

The charity Action on Elder Abuse estimates that as many as a million older people are vulnerable to abuse. The vulnerable elderly may become pressurised to take their own lives as they fear being a burden on their family.

In 2018, it was revealed that over 450 patients had their lives prematurely ended by medical intervention at Gosport Memorial Hospital on the Isle of Wight.

If doctors are licensed to legally administer lethal doses of medications, detecting criminality and abuse towards vulnerable patients will become even harder than it is at present. Laws need to default to safety.



There would be a risk that indications, for assisted suicide or euthanasia would be broadened far wider than currently intended.

This has been the case in the Netherlands with euthanasia is now given for those with dementia and psychiatric illness and in 2020 is being proposed to be available for children aged under 12 and anyone over 75 who has a ‘completed life’.

Indeed, restricting assisted suicide or euthanasia to the terminally ill is considered to be  discriminatory. The law in Canada has been found to be so and is now being extended to those who are not otherwise dying.

In Oregon in 2019, nearly 6 in 10 (59%) of those opting for assisted suicide cited the fear of being a burden on family, friends and caregivers as a reason for seeking death.  Refusal of treatment is now seen as falling within the qualifying definition for access to assisted suicide if the untreated underlying illness will eventually lead to the death of the patient.

Position Statement


We oppose any move to assisted suicide or euthanasia:
  • To state the value and worth of the lives of disabled and dying people
  • To preserve the trust in the doctor patient relationship
  • To protect the vulnerable from being pressurised to take their own life
  • To prevent future extension to children, psychiatric illness and dementia


We uphold the right of the patient:
  • To say no to burdensome treatment
  • To excellent symptom control
  • To change their mind about treatment choices


We support excellent, well- funded, accessible medical care including General Practice, Palliative Medicine, Care of the Elderly, Rehabilitation Medicine, Mental Health Services and Research.


We demand high quality social care and financial support to prevent patients feeling a burden.

What can you do?


Sign up

to ‘Our duty of care’ campaign (below) to be informed about developments in the assisted dying debate.


Tell colleagues

Organise talks/debates/grand rounds and discuss the issue.

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on email

Get involved in the BMA

Make your voice heard at the Annual Representative Meeting in June 2021.


Give financially

Donate to Care Not Killing to support the work of Our Duty of Care.

Get involved

Would be happy to provide a comment to the media on this issue?

Keep me up to date with Our duty of care via email. We use MailChimp to manage our membership lists and communicate with subscribers. You can read MailChimp’s Privacy Policy here. MailChimp will store your data securely, and neither Our duty of care nor MailChimp will share your data with anyone else. You can unsubscribe at any time.

By submitting this form, I agree that the above message, my name, address and email address will be sent to Our duty of care. I understand my data may be retained for monitoring purposes. See our Privacy Policy for more information.