A citizens’ jury in England has come out in favour of a change in legislation to allow terminally ill individuals to end their own lives. The 28-strong panel had no legal power to affect change, but was established by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics in order to provide more in-depth evidence to the debate around assisted dying than is possible via surveys. Though most of those taking part had already expressed support for the issue, jurors spent eight weeks reviewing evidence and listening to experts in order to reach their decision.
A bill proposing a similar change in Scotland is due to be debated this autumn, while politicians in Jersey and the Isle of Man have already approved assisted dying proposals. In England, Prime Minister Keir Starmer supports the introduction of legislation permitting assisted deaths and has promised to hold a vote on the issue.
Some anti-assisted dying campaigners, however, have questioned the impartiality of the “jury”. Dr Gordon Macdonald of Care Not Killing, for example, criticised the fact that participants had already taken sides on the matter. But supporters of the process, including Nuffield Council on Bioethics director Danielle Hamm, argued that they provided a platform for greater understanding of the reasons underlying different viewpoints.
The jury included representatives of different attitudes towards assisted dying and cut across age, gender and social groups. The vast majority of those taking part felt, by the end of the process, that assisted dying should be supported, with reasons including stopping people from experiencing pain at the end of their life, the desire for greater choice, and the importance of ensuring people could die with dignity. However, concerns were expressed about potential misuses of such legislation along with a subsequent loss of funding for end-of-life care
Read the full article from The BBC here: Read More
