In October 2024, the Association for Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland (APM), which represents over 1,400 health care professionals practicing or interested in Palliative Medicine, renewed its opposition to "any change in the law that could lead to the supply or administration of lethal medications to deliberately end a person's life."

'The APM opposes the legislation of AD because of concerns about:

'1. protection of vulnerable, frail, elderly, disabled and terminally ill people

'2. the lack of adequately funded and equally available specialist palliative care services in all areas in the UK

'3. concerns about trust and the impact on doctor-patient relationships'

The position statement notes that this position is informed by a string of surveys and consultations, including a 2022 survey which found that 75% of Scottish APM members "would not be willing to participate in any part of the assisted dying process and 98% stated that assisted dying should not be part of mainstream healthcare."

Reporting on the statement, The Guardian quoted Sarah Foot, a palliative care doctor who said there needed to an be overhaul of palliative care funding and provision.

"We shouldn't need charities to fund it… We need to invest in the workforce and invest in the palliative beds so people can die comfortably."

The Guardian also cited Rachel Clarke, a specialist in hospital palliative care. She 'said she had decided not to state her general position on assisted dying… but considered "categorically" that the law should not be changed at this time because so many patients were being "wholly failed" at the end of life.'

"My concern is that if we change the law without adequate resourcing of palliative care, then there will be people who choose to end their lives because they weren't being provided with the care they needed.

"I sometimes see patients [near the end of life] who come into hospital in unspeakable agony and want their lives to end. It is not because their pain cannot be prevented, but because they are not getting the care they need. Labour and Conservative governments have failed to provide adequate palliative care for patients."

Interviewed by the New Statesman, Professor Katherine Sleeman was asked why she thought palliative medicine doctors were so overwhelmingly opposed. She said:

"In palliative care, we work every day with people who are not only deteriorating and dying, but at their most vulnerable. Many of the patients I see are old, many are quite frail; they may have fluctuating capacity, but they all have good days and bad days. They all have moments of despair and moments of hope. And I think that we see that vulnerability every day in palliative care. Other types of medical professionals are far less exposed to those kinds of issues."

The Telegraph's 14 October front page reported on a letter from 24 palliative care registrars.

'The doctors, who describe themselves as the "next generation of palliative consultants", said they were "disappointed" that… [Ms Leadbeater] is advocating for changing the law at a time "when the UK needs an urgent focus on expanding palliative care".'

'They said: "Thousands of people dedicate their lives to walking beside people and their families facing death. Those dying need properly resourced care.

'"Currently, hospices are funded predominantly by charitable donations; funding is dwindling and costs rising, consequently hospice beds are closing. It hasn't gone unnoticed that assisted dying is financially a cheaper solution than providing holistic care to those who are dying. We palliative medicine registrars strongly oppose this Bill."'

Dr Matthew Doré, the honorary secretary of the Association for Palliative Medicine, said 'a proposed carve-out to allow for conscientious objection by doctors… was insufficient because they will still be required to refer to medics willing to provide the service, adding: "It's not a true conscientious objection."'

"Laws are more than rules - they send social messages. The social message being sent here is that, essentially, assisted dying, removing yourself from the picture, is what the state wants, and leaving palliative care to charity. The NHS is supposed to be 'cradle to grave', not 'cradle to very old'."

On 5 November, The Telegraph carried a letter of warning to MPs from three past APM presidents - Professor Bill Noble, Dr David John Brooks and Dr Amy Proffitt - concerning:

"The unwanted consequences of the legislation on assisted dying as proposed by Kim Leadbeater's private member's bill.

"The proposed system will be challenged on grounds of discrimination, for the medical profession's ethical principles… [of] autonomy and justice mean they cannot ethically restrict access to patients that they imagine might die soon, it must be for everyone they believe would benefit. Hence, clinical criteria will widen with the cooperation of doctors."

Why do these doctors oppose a change in the law? These are the doctors who work most closely with dying people. They know that too often, end of life suffering is caused by a lack of access: over 100,000 people in the UK die each year needing palliative care but do not receive it. They know that many rely on hospices, a movement which costs more than £1.6bn a year to run, more than £1bn of which must be found through charitable giving. And they know, ultimately, that dying is probably not as bad as you're expecting.

Image © Avansa regio Gent vzw / Creative Commons License 2.0