The first “citizens’ jury” on assisted dying in England has backed a change in the law to allow terminally ill people to end their lives.

A jury of 28 people concluded that it should be an option for people who should have the capacity to make their own decisions.

Although it has no legal powers, the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, which established the jury, said it represented an important new piece of evidence in the debate because it allowed the public to consider the issues in more depth than surveys. Is.

However, campaigners questioned the legality of this practice, as the majority of those recruited were already in favor of changing the law.

Dr Gordon MacDonald, of the Care Not Killing campaign group, said: “A jury in court must be strictly impartial and not have any strong views about the case they are deciding.

“So, what could have been a serious contribution to this important debate appears to fail the impartiality test.”

However, Danielle Ham, director of the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, said that in such a “highly complex, sensitive and morally charged” debate as assisted dying, a citizens’ jury would allow a more in-depth consideration of the issue. Gave, as well as discovered it. Because of people forming their own opinions.

The council said it formed the jury due to growing interest in the issue.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer supports changing the law in England and is committed to holding a vote on it.

A Bill proposing to change the law in Scotland is due to be debated in the autumn.

Meanwhile, politicians… jersey and this Isle of Man Have already backed plans to introduce assisted dying.

The jury spent eight weeks listening to experts and campaigners and reviewing evidence.

It was designed to be representative of the general public in terms of both demographics and age as well as attitudes toward assisted dying. This meant that the majority of those taking part – 17 – were initially in favor of assisted death, in line with the poll.

As well as asking them if they wanted to see the law changed, the jury were also asked why.

Of the 28 who voted, 20 ultimately supported assisted dying, while seven opposed it. One person remained undecided. Jurors changed their minds either way.

The jury supported both physician-assisted suicide, where a health professional prescribes lethal medications for eligible patients to take themselves, and voluntary euthanasia, where a health professional gives the medications to the patient.

The most common reasons for supporting the change were the importance of preventing people from being in pain at the end of their lives, giving people the knowledge that they can die with dignity, and allowing people options and choice.

However, concerns were raised that if the right safeguards were not put in place the new right to assisted dying could be misused and lead to a loss of funding for end of life care.

Ashok, a 53-year-old social worker who participated in the citizens’ jury, said he was “hesitating” when the process began, but was convinced by the evidence put forward to vote in favor of changing the law.

“You need safeguards to protect vulnerable people and prevent abuse. But when we heard the evidence and considered the experiences of people who have suffered at the end of their lives I thought it was time to give people a choice.

“The jury was really challenging, it was disturbing at some points, but it really made us think deeply about the issue.”

Assisted dying is already allowed in some US states, Australia and parts of Europe.

Sarah Wootton, chief executive of campaign group Dignity in Dying, said the results showed “the clear strength of public opinion”.

“It is clear that when people are given time to look deeply at the issue, examine all the evidence, and hear different viewpoints debate, they continue to overwhelmingly support change.

“It’s undeniable that the public wants this reform.”