The jury was set up by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics (NCOB), a self-stated “independent” policy and research centre based in the UK.
Out of 28 jury members who voted on the final day, 17 were originally in favour of a law change to permit assisted suicide in the UK. The jury then heard arguments for and against a law change over eight weeks, amounting to 24 hours of evidence in total.
In the end, 20 of the jury voted in favour of assisted suicide; seven voted against it, while one person was undecided. The result is not legally binding – an interim report can be read here.
Dr Gordon Macdonald, speaking for Care Not Killing, which campaigns against assisted suicide, condemned the flawed jury selection process: “A jury in a court of law must be rigorously impartial with no strong views about the case they are judging.
“So, what could have been a serious contribution to this important debate seemingly fails the impartiality test.”
Inherently Biased From The Start
SPUC’s Michael Robinson, Executive Director (Public Affairs and Legal Services), said: “This ‘citizens’ jury’ was weighted heavily in favour of euthanasia and assisted suicide from the start, which brings into question the integrity of the entire project. The fact that NCOB refers to assisted suicide (mentioned only once in its interim report) as ‘assisted dying’ also underscores an inherent bias.
“Significantly, at the beginning of the process, ten jury members said they ‘strongly agree’ that assisted dying should be legal in England, while only two strongly disagreed – a clear imbalance that, as Dr Macdonald states, hardly seems impartial.
“It should also be noted that out of the 28 members participating in the final vote, there was not a single person ‘limited a lot’ by a declared disability and who arguably has the most to lose from assisted suicide, as detailed by disability campaigner Liz Carr.
“‘If you are a visibly disabled person”, Carr terrifying documentary, ‘the chances are that somebody, often a complete stranger, will have come up to you and said something like, Gosh, if I was like you, I couldn’t go on… I’d rather be dead’.
“Carr’s terrifying BBC documentary Better Off Dead? exposed how ‘[assisted suicide] laws, I believe, will put lives like mine – marginalised lives – at risk, and those risks will be fatal’.”
Ongoing Attempts To Legalise Assisted Suicide In The UK
An “profound threat” for England and Wales, proposed by Lord Falconer, is being debated in the House of Lords. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has also promise of a free vote on assisted suicide on assisted suicide. In Scotland, Liam McArthur’s Assisted Dying for Terminally Ill Adults (Scotland) Bill is at Stage 1.
Despite increasing calls for such laws, the Health Secretary warned last week that patients might be “coerced” into assisted suicide because of a lack of adequate palliative care. “I am not sure as a country we have the right end-of-life care available to enable a real choice on assisted dying”, he said.
SPUC is campaigning against assisted suicide while also calling for improved palliative care, an area of concern for the British public. This week it was reported that an elderly British couple signed up for Dr Death’s suicide pod in Switzerland because they no longer trust the NHS to take care of them in their infirmity.
