More than 1,000 doctors have written to MPs urging them to vote against the assisted dying bill, calling it a “real threat to both patients and the medical workforce”.
The bill – which is due to be voted on by MPs for a final time on 20 June – would allow terminally ill patients from England and Wales to end their lives “on their own terms”, providing they have a life expectancy of six months or less.
A separate bill is currently passing through the Scottish parliament.
But doctors from across the NHS have written to MPs, warning them of their “serious concerns”.
Notable signatories include Sir John Burn, a geneticist who has led decades of cancer research, Sir Shakeel Qureshi, who was knighted for his work in paediatric cardiology, Professor Aileen Keel, the former deputy chief medical officer for Scotland, and Baroness Finlay, a Welsh doctor, professor of palliative medicine and member of the House of Lords.
The letter is signed by four doctors who hold OBEs, two who have MBEs, and one CBE.
The letter says that while a debate is needed on end of life care, “this bill is not the answer”.
More on Assisted Dying
Related Topics:
It raises concerns that not enough evidence has been heard from doctors, people with disabilities and other marginalised groups.
“This bill will widen inequalities, it provides inadequate safeguards and, in our collective view, is simply not safe,” it goes on to say, calling it a “deeply flawed bill”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:40
May: Two people given months to live debate assisted dying
Professor Colin Rees, a member of the Royal College of Physicians working group on assisted dying, said it was the “single most important piece of healthcare legislation in 50 or 60 years”.
“It will have very profound consequences for the future and many doctors are really concerned that members of parliament are not hearing the views of the medical profession.”
He said many doctors who remain neutral, or who even support the principle of assisted dying, remain concerned about the bill.
“We don’t think it’s a bill that is safe, that protects patients, protects families, and protects the medical workforce.”
What stage are the two assisted dying bills at now?
The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill passed the House of Commons with a majority of 55 in November.
Scotland’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland Bill) pass with a 14 majority in May.
But the legislation has not been without controversy, with 150 amendments made to get it through the first stage.
The bill will return to the House of Commons for a third reading this Friday. If voted through by MPs it will then proceed to the House of Lords.
‘No safeguards against coercion’
One of the areas of concern raised by the medics was the inability to properly identify patients at risk of coercive control.
“Vulnerable patients are at risk of coercion with women, victims of domestic abuse, and the elderly at particular risk,” the letter says.
It also warned it would widen social inequalities, with patients who do not have the resources for a comfortable death more likely to opt for assisted dying.
“People who struggle to pay for heating or care or wish to preserve their assets for their children are at high risk of choosing to die if the option is available and the alternative is more difficult.”
Data from the Annual Report of Dying With Dignity from Oregon in 2024 found 9.3% of those people who choose assisted deaths do so for financial reasons.
‘Doctors get it wrong 40% of the time’
Concerns have also been raised around the inaccuracies of medical prognosis.
“Research demonstrates that doctors get prognosis wrong around 40% of the time,” the letter says.
“As such, patients may end up choosing an assisted death and losing what could have been happy and fulfilling months or years of life.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:50
February: Why has the Assisted Dying Bill divided opinions?
The bill is also a risk to families, the letter says, as it does not require doctors to speak with family members.
“A close relative may know nothing until they get a call to arrange collection of their relative’s body,” it says, adding that there is no mechanism for a family member to raise concerns about a request.
The letter also addressed the potential impact on the medical workforce.
Evidence from the Netherlands suggests “doctors feel pressurised when dealing with patient requests for assisted deaths, meaning that doctors may end up having involvement despite it being against their principles, because they want to help their patients”.
Doctors’ letter highlight concerns about the risk to:
Patients
Does not necessitate treatment of depression or other remediable factors; does not protect against risk of coercion, particularly for women and the elderly; does not ensure that the assessment panel must meet the patient; will widen social inequalities, adversely affecting the socioeconomically deprived; does not take account of the inadequacies of assessing medical prognosis.
Families
Does not necessitate any involvement of families. The first they may know is when they are called to come and collect the body; assumes that an assisted death is ‘better’ than a well-managed natural death but there is little or no evidence in the literature for this assertion.
Palliative care
Makes it a legal right for patients to access assisted dying, but does not mandate a comparable right to be able to access other end of life services; means that patients may choose assisted dying because palliative care provision is inadequate • Places palliative care consultants (a speciality in which 80% of doctors are opposed to assisted dying) at the heart of delivering the services; ignores the fact that the UK is currently ranked higher for its palliative care services than any country that delivers assisted dying and the fact that countries that introduce assisted dying almost invariably see a decline in the quality of their palliative care services.
The medical workforce
Does not adequately recognise the risk of harm to doctors from delivering assisted dying; is unclear whether assisted dying should be considered a ‘treatment’.
Provision of adequate care
Proposes a panel which is not a multidisciplinary team and will not know the patient; proposes use of drugs which are not regulated or approved and does not mandate any monitoring of their complications.
A current senior member of the King’s household was the head of royal protection at the time Prince Andrew allegedly asked one of his police officers to dig up dirt on Virginia Guiffre, Sky News has discovered.
Lord Peter Rosslyn, who is now Lord Steward and Personal Secretary to the King and Queen, was head of Royalty and Diplomatic Protection between 2003-2014.
It is not clear if Lord Rosslyn – known at the time as Commander Peter Loughborough – was made aware of Prince Andrew’s request. However, it reportedly happened in 2011 when it’s claimed Andrew wrote in an email that he passed the date of birth and confidential social security number of his accuser, Virginia Guiffre, to one of his close protection team to find out information about her.
Image: Lord Peter Rosslyn arriving at the Duchess of Kent’s funeral. Pic: PA
Sky News approached Lord Rosslyn for comment, which was passed to Buckingham Palace.
A palace spokesperson said: “As you may or may not be aware, Lord Rosslyn works for The Royal Household and thus this issue has been referred to me. However, since this matter relates to his time in service with the Metropolitan Police, they would be the appropriate body to approach with media enquiries of this nature.”
The Met Police had nothing further to add.
Police sources have told Sky News the officer (CPO) involved would have been expected to escalate this request from Andrew to his superiors.
While there may have been other members of senior staff between the CPO and Lord Rosslyn, the request should have been considered serious enough to be referred to the top of the Royalty and Diplomatic Service.
Those with knowledge of the royal household tell us Lord Rosslyn is one of the King’s closest and most trusted members of staff.
His role as Lord Steward involves managing all aspects of the King’s personal affairs, and the non-state business of the monarch.
Who is Lord Peter Rosslyn?
As well as being much respected by Queen Elizabeth II, and affectionately known as her “favourite policeman”, in 2014 Lord Rosslyn was appointed as Master of the Household of the then Prince of Wales and the Duchess of Cornwall at Clarence House.
In February 2003, he was made Lord Steward by the King, thereby becoming the “first dignitary of the King’s court” – a sign that the monarch wanted to keep him around.
While Andrew’s alleged attempts to smear Virginia Guiffre would have been morally wrong, he also would have been asking his police officer to put his career on the line.
Any attempt to use police databases to find information on an innocent individual not connected to a crime would have been a sackable offence, and unlawful.
In his statement on Friday, Prince Andrew again stressed that he vehemently denies the allegations against him.
A Buckingham Palace source told Sky News that the recent claims that have emerged are being viewed by the Royal Family with “very serious and grave concern” and “should be examined in the proper and fullest ways”.
Image: Prince Andrew’s signature
Andrew should give evidence to US authorities – minister
The revelation comes as a government minister said Andrew should give evidence to US authorities – and anger grows after it emerged he had been paying “peppercorn rent” for two decades.
Passages from the memoir released on Tuesday of the late Virginia Giuffre, who accused Prince Andrew of sexually assaulting her, provide further details of their alleged encounters.
Prince Andrew has always strenuously denied the allegations.
Business Secretary Peter Kyle said on Tuesday he would “support” Prince Andrew giving evidence to US prosecutors.
He added he would also support any decision by the Met Police to investigate allegations that Prince Andrew used a Met bodyguard to gain information on Giuffre.
It comes as anger continues to grow over Prince Andrew’s housing arrangements.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
16:52
‘Victims should be in driver’s seat’
‘Peppercorn rent’
The royal has only paid “peppercorn rent” for more than two decades at his Windsor mansion, according to a National Audit Office report published in 2005.
“Peppercorn rent” is a legal term used in leases to show that rent technically exists, so the lease is valid, but it’s nominal, often literally £1 a year or just a symbolic amount.
In practice, it means the tenant pays no rent.
It also shows he was required to pay a further £7.5m for refurbishments.
A document from the Crown Estate also shows he signed a 75-year lease on the property in 2003.
It reveals he paid £1m for the lease and that since then he has paid “one peppercorn” of rent “if demanded” per year.
The agreement also contains a clause which states the Crown Estate would have to pay Andrew around £558,000 if he gave up the lease.
Pressure is mounting on him to give up the 30-bedroom mansion.
Senior Tory Robert Jenrick called for Prince Andrew to live privately.
‘He has disgraced himself’
He said: “It’s about time Prince Andrew took himself off to live in private and make his own way in life.
“He has disgraced himself, he has embarrassed the royal family time and again. I don’t see why the taxpayer, frankly, should continue to foot the bill at all. The public are sick of him.”
Image: Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir was released today. Pic: Reuters
Mr Kyle, however, said that would be a question for King Charles.
But he did say MPs could bring forward a motion to strip Prince Andrew of his remaining titles, adding it would be up to Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle to choose one of these motions for debate.
The chief executive of Lloyds Banking Group has warned that a tax raid on the banks could harm lending to households and businesses.
In an exclusive interview with Sky News at the government’s regional investment summit, Charlie Nunn urged the chancellor to ignore calls for a windfall tax on commercial banks even though the sector is enjoying record profits.
“If we are going to have the ability and the confidence to continue to lend into the real economy, to help households and businesses invest, we need to make sure that the financial services system and Lloyds Banking Group really remains healthy in that context,” he said.
Image: Charlie Nunn was appointed Lloyds boss in November 2020. Pic: PA
Britain’s four largest banks – HSBC, Barclays, Lloyds Banking Group and NatWest – posted record profits of £45.9bn last year and are on course for another bumper performance this year, thanks to higher interest rates.
Their financial success has raised speculation that the sector could be in the chancellor’s firing line at next month’s budget.
More on Banking
Related Topics:
Rachel Reeves could raise the bank surcharge – a levy on bank profits in addition to corporation tax.
The Conservative government cut the levy from 8% to 3% in 2023. Returning it to 8% could raise £2bn for a chancellor who needs to find anywhere up to £50bn to meet her fiscal rules.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:17
Chancellor faces tough budget choices
Some have suggested a separate windfall tax, which could raise closer to £8bn.
Mr Nunn said such a move risked undermining the health of a sector which underpins the country’s economic prosperity.
“Obviously, taxes are a matter for the government to look at. But it’s definitely one of the factors that impact our ability to support the real economy in the UK,” he said.
A raid on the banks would cause pain to a sector that is already facing substantial costs because of the car finance scandal.
Lloyds, one of the most exposed lenders, has set aside nearly £2bn to cover potential compensation arising from the Financial Conduct Authority’s (FCA) redress scheme.
The FCA established the scheme to draw a line under the long-running mis-selling scandal, in which lenders failed to disclose commission paid to brokers, meaning many customers ended up paying more than they should have for their car finance.
Under the FCA’s scheme, eligible customers – as many as 14.2 million – could receive an average of £700 each.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:21
Payouts due after motor finance scandal
There is mounting anger within the industry at the way the scheme, which is going out to consultation, has been set up. Mr Nunn said the proposal was too generous to customers and not proportionate to the harms actually caused to customers.
He did not rule out the possibility of a judicial review but, in the first instance, called for a rethink, warning that the current scheme risks scaring away investors, causing an exodus from the market and driving up the cost and availability of credit.
“When you look at the implication of what’s being proposed by the FCA, it’s going to potentially take 20 years of profitability of the car finance industry. And, what does that mean for invest ability in that industry and for other investors and businesses looking to invest in the UK? There’s real concern that this is going to create an invest ability issue,” he said.
“Our concern is will the industry continue to function? Will it support all customers across the whole of the UK that need finance? Will other investors be looking at this and wondering whether the UK is a place they should invest, if retrospectively we can take away 20 years of profits?”
Prince Andrew should give evidence to US authorities, a government minister has said, as anger grows after it emerged he had been paying “peppercorn rent” for two decades.
Passages from the memoir released on Tuesday of the late Virginia Giuffre, who accused Prince Andrew of sexually assaulting her, provide further details of their alleged encounters.
Prince Andrew has always strenuously denied the allegations.
Business Secretary Peter Kyle said on Tuesday he would “support” Prince Andrew giving evidence to US prosecutors.
He added he would also support any decision by the Met Police to investigate allegations that Prince Andrew used a Met bodyguard to gain information on Giuffre.
It comes as anger continues to grow over Prince Andrew’s housing arrangements.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
16:52
‘Victims should be in driver’s seat’
‘Peppercorn rent’
The royal has only paid “peppercorn rent” for more than two decades at his Windsor mansion, according to a National Audit Office report published in 2005.
“Peppercorn rent” is a legal term used in leases to show that rent technically exists, so the lease is valid, but it’s nominal, often literally £1 a year or just a symbolic amount.
In practice, it means the tenant pays no rent.
It also shows he was required to pay a further £7.5m for refurbishments.
A document from the Crown Estate also shows he signed a 75-year lease on the property in 2003.
It reveals he paid £1m for the lease and that since then he has paid “one peppercorn” of rent “if demanded” per year.
The agreement also contains a clause which states the Crown Estate would have to pay Andrew around £558,000 if he gave up the lease.
Pressure is mounting on him to give up the 30-bedroom mansion.
Senior Tory Robert Jenrick called for Prince Andrew to live privately.
‘He has disgraced himself’
He said: “It’s about time Prince Andrew took himself off to live in private and make his own way in life.
“He has disgraced himself, he has embarrassed the royal family time and again. I don’t see why the taxpayer, frankly, should continue to foot the bill at all. The public are sick of him.”
Image: Virginia Giuffre’s posthumous memoir was released today. Pic: Reuters
Mr Kyle, however, said that would be a question for King Charles.
But he did say MPs could bring forward a motion to strip Prince Andrew of his remaining titles, adding it would be up to Speaker Sir Lindsay Hoyle to choose one of these motions for debate.