Eight members of the House of Lords with backgrounds in nursing or medicine are calling on MPs to continue their support for emergency legislation on assisted dying after the End of Life Adults (End of Life Care) Bill failed to reach a vote in the House of Lords before the adjournment of the last Parliament.
In an open letter published by BMJ Today, Baroness Claire Gelada and her colleagues expressed their regret and warned that the failure to pass the bill, and that MPs did not have the opportunity to vote on it, put more dying people and their families at risk and undermined public trust in Parliament.
“The onus is on you, the members of Congress, to ensure that Congress can decide on this issue,” they wrote.
They explain that the bill draws on long-established best practices overseas and shows that establishing a legal framework for end-of-life choices is far better than the current situation. Key elements of the bill are consistent with existing best practices for end-of-life decision-making, including assessment of capacity, informed consent, and safeguards against coercion.
It is wrong to suggest that health care professionals who help people make these life choices cannot be trusted because this work is part of their daily practice, they argue, and stress that many of the amendments proposed by their colleagues ignore these similarities and would make the assisted dying process less safe and clear for both patients and health care workers.
And there is growing support for legal reform among medical and nursing professionals, with all major medical organizations pointing to a move away from opposition to assisted dying in favor of neutrality, allowing for constructive engagement in the debate.
They write that the bill itself has undergone more than 100 hours of scrutiny in the House of Commons, benefited from expert opinion from a range of medical professionals, and welcomed the adoption of key changes called for by the British Medical Association, including safeguards for doctors’ conscience, a clear opt-in model and a ban on doctors using professional judgment when discussing assisted dying with eligible adults.
The authors conclude that their role as colleagues is to listen to patients and the public, consider expert evidence, and provide constructive scrutiny based on their own expertise.
Despite their disappointment, they insist that Parliament should continue debate until a decision is reached, and urge the House of Commons to assert its primacy so that it can carry out its duties effectively and restore public trust.
The authors of this letter are Baroness Claire Gelada, Sir Naren Patel, Baroness Mary Watkins, Sir John Alderdice, Baroness Anne-Marie Rafferty, Baroness Elaine Murphy, Sir Robert Winston and Baroness Geeta Nargund.
sauce:
Reference magazines:
Wise, J. (2026). Supporters of the Dying Assistance Act vow to try again after the proposed bill expires. B.M.J. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.s810. https://www.bmj.com/content/393/bmj.s810/rr-1
