In a significant development, England’s first “citizens’ jury” on assisted dying has endorsed a change in the law that would permit terminally ill individuals to choose to end their lives. The 28-member jury, tasked with deliberating the issue, concluded that assisted dying should be an option for those deemed capable of making their own decisions.
While the jury does not have legal authority, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which organized the exercise, highlighted its importance in providing nuanced insights into public opinion on this complex issue. Unlike traditional surveys, the citizens’ jury allowed participants to deeply engage with the moral, ethical, and practical considerations surrounding assisted dying.
However, some campaigners have raised concerns about the jury’s impartiality. Dr. Gordon Macdonald, of the Care Not Killing campaign, questioned the fairness of the process, noting that many participants had already expressed support for legal change. “A jury in a court of law must be rigorously impartial with no strong views about the case they are judging,” Macdonald said, suggesting that the jury’s findings may not fully represent the breadth of public opinion.
In contrast, Danielle Hamm, director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, defended the exercise. She argued that in such a “highly complex, sensitive, and ethically charged” debate, a citizens’ jury provided a platform for participants to engage in meaningful reflection, enabling them to explore the reasons behind their views in greater depth.
The jury was convened amid growing public interest in the issue of assisted dying. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer has voiced support for legal reform in England and committed to holding a vote on the matter. In Scotland, a bill to change the law is set to be debated later this year, while Jersey and the Isle of Man have already advanced plans to legalize assisted dying.
Eight Weeks of Deliberation
Over the course of eight weeks, the citizens’ jury listened to expert testimony and campaigners, reviewed evidence, and engaged in deep discussions. The jury was designed to reflect the general public in terms of both demographics and attitudes toward assisted dying. At the outset, 17 of the 28 members supported the concept, consistent with broader polling data.
In the final vote, 20 members supported a change in the law, with seven opposed and one undecided. Throughout the process, some members shifted their positions, both in favor of and against the proposed legal change.
The jury also expressed support for both physician-assisted suicide—where a healthcare professional prescribes lethal medication that the patient takes themselves—and voluntary euthanasia, where a medical professional administers the drugs.
The primary reasons cited for supporting legal reform included the desire to prevent terminally ill individuals from enduring prolonged pain, the belief that people should have the right to die with dignity, and the importance of offering individuals greater choice at the end of life.
Nevertheless, concerns were raised about potential misuse of assisted dying rights if proper safeguards were not implemented. Some jury members worried that legalizing assisted dying could lead to a reduction in funding for end-of-life care.
A Personal Journey
Ashok, a 53-year-old social worker who participated in the jury, described the experience as “challenging” but ultimately persuasive. Initially undecided, Ashok explained that the evidence presented during the process convinced him to vote in favor of changing the law.
“You need safeguards to protect the vulnerable and stop abuse,” Ashok said. “But after hearing the evidence and considering the experiences of those who have suffered at the end of their lives, I felt it was time to give people options. The jury was difficult and emotional at times, but it pushed us to think deeply about the issue.”
Assisted dying is currently legal in parts of the United States, Australia, and several European countries. Advocates for reform in the UK believe the jury’s findings reflect the broader public’s desire for change.
Sarah Wootton, chief executive of the campaign group Dignity in Dying, emphasized the significance of the jury’s conclusions. “The results demonstrate the clear strength of public opinion. When people have the opportunity to examine this issue in detail, they overwhelmingly support change. The public wants this reform, and it is inarguable.”
As debates over assisted dying laws continue to unfold across the UK, the citizens’ jury provides a new dimension to an ongoing and deeply personal national conversation.