BMA position on physician-assisted dying

We represent doctors and medical students who, like the wider public, hold a wide range of views on physician-assisted dying.

On 14 September 2021, our policy-making body (the representative body) voted in favour of a motion changing the BMA’s policy from opposition to a change in the law on assisted dying, to a position of neutrality.

Our definition of neutrality (set out in our 2020 survey) is that we neither support nor oppose attempts to change the law. Any Parliamentary Bill is an ‘attempt to change the law’ and we are therefore neutral both on the principle of assisted dying and on any particular Bill. We will not be silent on this issue, however. We have a responsibility to represent our members’ interests and concerns in any legislative proposals and in the implementation of any new laws.

Read more about how BMA policy is formed.

Protecting and representing BMA members

In 2022/23, the BMA’s Medical Ethics Committee undertook a significant piece of work to determine how we can best protect and represent our members in response to legislative proposals to permit assisted dying. We did this by identifying those issues that would significantly impact on doctors, if the law were to change, and considering what position the BMA should take on them.

In reaching a position on these issues, the BMA sought to consider and balance four sets of interests:

• BMA members who would be willing to provide assisted dying if it were legalised;
• BMA members who, for whatever reasons, would not be willing to participate in assisted dying; 
• patients who may wish to access a lawful assisted dying service; and
• patients who may feel anxious about the provision of such a service.

The views arising from this work were approved by the four BMA Councils across the UK in 2023, and have formed the basis of our influencing work across four jurisdictions across the UK and Crown Dependencies.

BMA policies passed in 2025 and 2026 have reaffirmed many of these positions and have added a few additional points. The BMA’s views from 2023, updated to reflect these more recent policies are listed here, with further detail on each point provided below. 

Some of these points would need to be included on the face of the Bill, some would be in secondary legislation, and some are related to the implantation stage of any new laws and the development of professional guidance. The BMA will continue to engage throughout this process to promote the importance of these points.

General

• an ‘opt-in’ model for doctors to provide assisted dying
• a right to decline to carry out activities directly related to assisted dying, for any reason, not just on grounds of conscience

Protection from discrimination and abuse

• statutory protection from discrimination against doctors based on their views or intentions in relation to physician-assisted dying
• provision for safe access zones

 Qualifications and experience

Policy from 2026 states that: 

• all doctors participating in assisted dying must undergo specific training and national accreditation and be on a dedicated assisted dying register
• resident doctors should be specifically excluded from formal involvement in the assisted dying process

Delivering an assisted dying service

• assisted dying to be arranged through a separate service or, at least, with a degree of separation
• assisted dying is not a form of ‘medical treatment’ - there should be no duty to raise the issue of assisted dying with patients
• no prohibition on raising the issue of assisted dying with patients
• an official service to provide information for patients
• adequate new funding and equitable access

Policy from 2025 called for: 

• specific safeguards to avoid the risk of coercion
• patients requesting assisted dying to be encouraged to attend a face-to-face review by a palliative care doctor
• funding for assisted dying to be matched by additional funding for palliative care, mental health and social care services

Oversight and monitoring

• open and transparent regulation
• the collection and publication of data
• a review of all assisted deaths.

BMA views (updated August 2026)

General approach

If assisted dying were legalised in any part of the United Kingdom or the Crown Dependencies (Jersey, Guernsey and Isle of Man), the BMA would want to see legislation that gives doctors genuine choice about whether, and if so to what extent, they are willing to participate. In particular, the BMA would want to see:

An ‘opt-in’ model for doctors to provide assisted dying

The BMA believes that any legislation to permit physician-assisted dying should be based on an ‘opt-in’ model, so that only those doctors who positively choose to participate are able to do so. Doctors who opt in to provide the service should also be able to choose which parts of the service they are willing to provide (eg assessing eligibility and/or prescribing and/or administering drugs to eligible patients).

A right to decline to carry out activities directly related to assisted dying for any reason

Any legislation on assisted dying should not include a standard conscientious objection clause as found in legislation on abortion and assisted reproduction. The BMA believes that, if assisted dying were legalised, doctors should be able to decline to carry out any activities that are directly related to assisted dying (such as assessing capacity, or determining life-expectancy, specifically to assess eligibility for assisted dying) for any reason. Therefore, there should be a general right to object (or a specific ‘no duty to participate’ provision) which does not need to be based on matters of conscience.

Protection from discrimination and abuse

Through the work we have undertaken with our members, it is clear that some doctors are concerned about how their decision to participate, or not to participate, if physician-assisted dying were legalised, might impact on them both personally and professionally. For that reason, in the event of legislation, the BMA would want to see:

Statutory protection from discrimination

If assisted dying were to be legalised, the BMA would want to see specific provisions in the legislation making it unlawful to discriminate against, or cause detriment to, any doctor on the basis of their decision to either participate, or not participate, in assisted dying.

Provision for safe access zones

The BMA believes that any Bill to legalise assisted dying should include provision for safe access zones that could be invoked should the need arise, to protect staff and patients from harassment and/or abuse.

Qualifications and experience

Training, accreditation and registration

Any doctor who chooses to provide a formal role in assisted dying must have specialist training and accreditation and be subject to ongoing professional oversight. Providing assisted dying would be a new and complex process with a number of different stages on which health professionals will require specific training, including the assessments that need to be undertaken (including specific steps to identify any coercion), clinical management and ensuring the terms of the legislation are met. 

The BMA also supports the establishment of a dedicated register of those doctors who have opted in and have been trained and accredited to provide assisted dying. 

Resident doctors excluded

Until 2026, the BMA had not taken a position on which doctors should be eligible to undertake a formal role in assisted dying but had focussed on the importance of appropriate training and competence. At the ARM in 2026, however, the BMA’s representative body decided that resident doctors should be specifically excluded from formal involvement in the assisted dying process.

Delivering an assisted dying service

The way in which any future assisted dying service would be delivered in practice would have a very significant impact on doctors. For that reason, if the law were to change, the BMA would want to see:

Assisted dying to be arranged through a separate service or, at least, with a degree of separation

The BMA does not believe that assisted dying should be part of the standard role of doctors or  integrated into existing care pathways (whereby a patient’s GP, oncologist or palliative care doctor would, at the patient’s request, provide assisted dying as part of the standard care and treatment they provide). In the BMA’s view, assisted dying should be arranged and managed through a separate service or, at least, with a degree of separation.

This does not necessarily mean separate from the NHS (the BMA has not taken a position on this) or in a separate clinic – importantly, the separateness is not about who the provider is/where they are located but about ensuring it is set up in such a way that doctors wishing to participate, via opting in, have adequate time, space, resource and support, and that potentially eligible patients have adequate access, support, information and guidance throughout their journey in the process. It is about making it distinct, not about divorcing it from a potentially eligible patient’s relationship with their GP or treating doctor (if they have opted in and are willing to participate).

The model proposed in Jersey, whereby the Jersey Assisted Dying Service will ‘coordinate and deploy the professionals’ who would provide the service, provides one example of how this could work. An alternative model would be to set up any assisted dying service along the same lines as the Medical Examiner Service (in England and Wales) or the Forensic Medicine Service (in Scotland). This would ensure that dedicated time and funding was allocated to undertake the training and work involved, which would be carried out in addition to, and outside of, doctors’ normal clinical duties. 

The service could then take the form of a professional network of specially trained doctors from across the country who have chosen to participate, who come together to receive specialised training, guidance, and both practical and emotional support. They would then provide the service within their own locality – for example, in the patient’s usual hospital, or their home.

In our view, having this degree of separation would be better for doctors and for patients and would help to ensure consistency, and facilitate oversight, research and audit of the service.

No duty to raise the issue of assisted dying with patients 

The BMA’s view is that assisted dying is not a ‘medical treatment’ in the conventional sense and so the Supreme Court judgments of Montgomery (concerning the scope of information that must be provided when seeking consent to treatment) and McCulloch (which covers doctors’ duties to raise treatment options with patients) are not relevant to assisted dying. For the avoidance of any doubt, however, the BMA would want to see this explicitly stated in any legislation, with specific provision making clear that there is no duty on doctors to raise assisted dying with patients if it were legalised. Doctors should be trusted to use their professional judgement to decide when and if a discussion about assisted dying would be appropriate, taking their cue from the patient as they do on all other issues.

No prohibition on raising assisted dying with patients

The BMA would not support a prohibition on doctors raising the issue of assisted dying with patients. Doctors should be able to talk to patients about all reasonable and legally available options; a provision that limits or hinders open discussion about any aspect of death and dying is likely to be detrimental to patient care. 

A prohibition would also create uncertainty and legal risks for doctors, which may inhibit effective doctor/patient communication and understanding. Some patients find it difficult to bring up sensitive subjects in their consultations, and doctors are skilled at reading between the lines of what patients say and working out what has been left unsaid. It may be clear to the doctor that the patient wishes to explore the topic without them actually mentioning assisted dying. In this situation, a doctor who responded by gently exploring whether this was an issue the patient wished to discuss, could subsequently be open to legal challenge (for example, if a family member argued that the doctor, rather than the patient, had initiated the discussion). 

In the Australian state of Victoria, the prohibition on raising assisted dying, contained in its 2017 law, was removed by legislation in November 2025 (coming into force in April 2027). An official review of the law in New Zealand also found that the prohibition on raising assisted dying with patients was creating a barrier to access and should be removed  (pages 7 and 10).

An official service to provide information and support for patients

We would support the establishment of an official service to provide personalised and balanced information to patients about the range of options available to them, so that they can make informed decisions. This would ensure that doctors who did not wish, or did not feel confident, to provide information to patients about assisted dying had somewhere they could direct patients to, in the knowledge that they would receive accurate and objective information. It would also ensure that patients who may meet the eligibility criteria would be able to access the information they need without the requirement to go through their doctor and would have support to navigate the process.

The Nuffield Trust, in its review of assisted dying in other countries, has found evidence that this type of ‘care navigator’ role improves both access and understanding amongst patients. 

New funding and equitable access

If Parliaments across the UK and Crown Dependencies decided to change the law on assisted dying, the relevant Governments must ensure that adequate new funds are made available,  whether it is provided by the NHS or not (we do not take a position on that). They must ensure that the service is properly resourced, and that funding and workforce are not diverted from other, already overstretched, healthcare services.

We also believe that, alongside funding for the service itself, additional funding would be needed in related areas for mental health, social care and palliative care services. The BMA has long called for additional funding and more equitable access to palliative care, and we believe that, if the law changes, patients considering assisted dying should be encouraged to see a palliative care specialist, to discuss the options available to them.

Governments would also need to ensure that, in line with the key principles that guide the NHS, if assisted dying were legalised, any assisted dying service would be available to all patients (who meet the eligibility criteria) on an equitable basis.

Oversight and regulation

If the law changed to permit assisted dying, it would be essential that it was properly regulated with systems in place to ensure appropriate standard-setting, quality assurance and to maintain confidence in the service. For that reason, the BMA would want to see:

Open and transparent regulation

The BMA does not have a view on what form it should take but, if the law changed, we would strongly support the establishment of an independent and transparent system of oversight, monitoring and regulation.

The collection and publication of data

To ensure openness and transparency, there should be a requirement for data about all assisted deaths to be collected centrally, and for aggregated data to be published on a regular basis.

A detailed review of all assisted deaths

The BMA would support the introduction of a system for routinely reviewing all assisted deaths to ensure that the correct process was followed and to identify learning points to improve the management of cases. Review committees are common in countries that have legalised assisted dying.

Impact

The BMA has been working hard across four jurisdictions to ensure that, if the law changes, doctors have the greatest amount of choice and protection. The table below illustrates which of the BMA’s positions (set out above) have been included in the legislative proposals. Where indicated in brackets we believe the BMA’s interventions were influential in achieving this. Some of these issues (such as the separate service) could be resolved either on the face of the Bill or, if legislation passes, in Regulations, codes of practice, guidance or through the practicalities of implementation. The BMA will continue to engage, throughout the legislative process and implementation stage of any legislation that passes, to promote these issues. 

More information about our engagement, and the current status of the legislative proposals, in each jurisdiction is set out in the engagement section below.

* the importance of individualised post death reviews in England and Wales has been lessened by the inclusion of a multi-disciplinary panel review as part of the approval process.

Engagement

Providing briefing material and commentary on legislative proposals does not mean the BMA is giving support for a change in the law – the BMA is neutral on whether or not the law should change. We are, however, seeking to ensure that our members are protected and represented in the event of any future change in the law to permit physician-assisted dying. The BMA will therefore review and engage with any specific legislative proposals across the UK and Crown Dependencies and speak up, as and when necessary, to protect and represent our members.

Isle of Man

The Isle of Man Parliament (Tynwald) debated the Assisted Dying Bill 2023, which was introduced by Dr Alex Allinson MHK. Through the Bill’s scrutiny stages in the House of Keys and the Legislative Council, members scrutinised its provisions and made amendments.   

The BMA engaged throughout – after our initial correspondence to Dr Allinson, in response to his request for the Association's views on his Bill, we submitted evidence to the House of Keys Committee that was set up to consider the Bill. Following this, we continued to brief on the draft legislation – highlighting our views to members at the clauses stage and the final consideration stage in the Legislative Council.

Amendments made to the Bill during its passage include:

• moving to an ‘opt-in’ system for doctors;
• removing the prohibition on doctors initiating discussions on assisted dying with patients;
• confirming that doctors would not be under any duty to raise assisted dying with patients;
• adding new statutory protection against discrimination for doctors and
• a commitment to post death reviews.

The Bill completed its progress through Tynwald on 25 March 2025 and was sent for Royal Assent. Subsequent amendments were made to the legislation in June 2026 to ensure that it was compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. These changes included adding the commitment to post death reviews to the face of the Bill. The Bill is currently awaiting Royal Assent. Read more information about the latest developments in the Isle of Man.

Jersey

In November 2021, Jersey's States Assembly decided 'in principle' that assisted dying should be permitted and to make arrangements for the provision of an assisted dying service. Following public engagement and consultation, a ministerial committee was set up to refine the policy proposals. The information above was shared with the ministerial committee through a letter to the Minister for Health and Social Services.

The ministerial committee published its report on 22 March 2024 setting out its detailed policy proposals. The Jersey proposals already included an ‘opt-in’ system for doctors, a separate assisted dying service and an information and support service for patients. In response to the BMA's interventions, the report recommended extending the right to refuse on grounds of conscience to refusal on any ground and said that consideration would be given to the introduction of statutory protection from discrimination and the provision of safe access zones. These proposals were accepted by the States Assembly on 21 May 2024. The draft law was published in September 2025 (with all of the BMA’s points included) and was passed on 26 February 2026. The law received Royal Assent on 9 July 2026 and is expected to come into force in late 2027. Read information about the policy proposals and the latest developments in Jersey.

England and Wales

Private Member’s Bill (2024-26)

On 3 October 2024, Kim Leadbeater MP announced that – having come first in Westminster's private members’ ballot – she would be introducing a Bill to legalise assisted dying in England and Wales. The BMA had constructive meetings with Kim Leadbeater MP to discuss the BMA’s views, both in advance of the publication of her Bill and during its passage in the Commons. (This engagement does not indicate support for the Bill or otherwise, rather it ensures the voice of doctors is represented.)

From our engagement, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill (published on 12 November 2024) included many of the BMA's priority provisions, including: 

• an opt-in model for doctors to provide assisted dying (doctors would choose whether to have the training required to provide assisted dying);
• a general right to decline to participate in assisted dying for any reason;
• protection from detriment on the basis of a doctor’s decision to, or not to, participate;
• no duty to raise, or prohibition on raising, assisted dying with patients.

During the Bill’s passage in the Commons, our engagement with MPs included both written and oral evidence to the committee, as well as briefing on specific amendments at various stages of debate. The Bill completed its passage through the House of Commons on 16 June and was passed to the House of Lords.

In the Lords, the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was sponsored by Lord Charlie Falconer KC. The BMA held constructive meetings  with Lord Falconer and Kim Leadbeater MP to discuss outstanding areas of the Bill we would want to see amended.  

The Bill passed its first debate (‘Second Reading’) in the House of Lords on 19 September 2025 on the unique condition that a Select Committee would be convened to take oral evidence on the Bill’s provisions from selected witnesses. The Select Committee report of oral evidence transcripts was published on 11 November, and the conventional Committee Stage of the Bill in the Lords began. The BMA provided briefings for the Second Reading debate and at relevant points during the Committee Stage line-by-line scrutiny. As the Bill had not completed its Committee Stage by the end of the final day allocated to it (24 April), the Bill ran out of time and did not progress.

Private Member's Bill (2026)

The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill was reintroduced into the House of Commons by Lauren Edwards MP on 17 June 2026. Second Reading of the Bill is scheduled for 11 September. 

Scotland

Liam McArthur MSP published his Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill on 27 March 2024. BMA Scotland sent a letter to Mr McArthur setting out the BMA’s position in relation to his Bill and met with him to discuss this. The Bill was allocated to the Scottish Parliament’s Health, Social Care and Sport Committee for consideration and the BMA provided both written and oral evidence at stage 1. The Stage 1 Committee report was published on 30 April 2025. 

On 13 May 2025, the Scottish Parliament debated the Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill and voted for it at stage 1. The BMA briefed all MSPs in advance of the debate. Following a number of meetings with the sponsor of the Bill and other MSPs, and providing briefings, the BMA was successful in achieving a number of amendments to the Bill at Stage 2, which reflect our positions (as set out above).  Changes to the Bill at Stage 2 include:

• shifting from an ‘opt-out’ to an ‘opt-in’ system for doctors (only those who have chosen to have the required training are able to participate);
• shifting from a conscientious objection clause to there being ‘no duty to participate’ for any reason;
• inclusion of a clause confirming there is no duty to raise assisted dying
• inclusion of a clause confirming there is no prohibition on raising assisted dying
• a ‘no detriment’ clause, prohibiting any detriment on grounds of an individual’s views/intentions with regard to assisted dying; and
• a support/advocacy service to assist those who are eligible for assisted dying to understand and navigate the system. 

The Bill, as amended at Stage 2, can be found here. 

Just before the Stage 3 debate, it became clear that some of the amendments we had achieved, including the ‘no duty to participate’ provision, had been deemed to be outside the legislative competence of the Scottish Parliament (under the devolution settlement). This meant that those provisions had to be removed from the Bill before it was voted on at Stage 3.  If the Bill had passed, the UK Government would then have had to make section 104 orders (s.104 of the Scotland Act) for them to be reintroduced. To ensure that these protections were in place for doctors (had the Bill passed), an amendment to Clause 32 (Commencement) was passed at Stage 3 (introduced by Liam McArthur at our request) to make explicit on the face of the Bill that the legislation could not come into force until these orders had been made. 

The Bill was rejected at Stage 3 (the final stage).

What physician-assisted dying is

Physician-assisted dying refers to doctors’ involvement in measures intentionally designed to end a patient’s life, covering the situations below. 

1. Where doctors would prescribe lethal drugs at the voluntary request of an adult patient with capacity, who meets defined eligibility criteria, to enable that patient to self-administer the drugs to end their own life. This is sometimes referred to as physician-assisted dying or physician-assisted suicide.
2. Where doctors would administer lethal drugs at the voluntary request of an adult patient with capacity, who meets defined eligibility criteria, with the intention of ending that patient’s life. This is often referred to as voluntary euthanasia.​

Eligibility

Eligibility for physician-assisted dying would be set out in any piece of legislation.

In our 2020 member survey, however, we assumed the criteria would fall within the following boundaries, to cover patients who:

• are adults
• have the mental capacity to make the decision
• have made a voluntary request and
• have either a terminal illness or serious physical illness causing intolerable suffering that cannot be relieved.