CRITICS have warned that the historic vote which saw Jersey become the second place in the British Isles to legalise assisted dying leaves “significant unanswered questions” about how the law will work in practice – particularly for doctors.
This week, Jersey politicians voted by 32–16 in support of detailed legislation enshrining the right for Islanders with terminal conditions to end their lives.
The law is likely to come in force in late 2027 and will only apply to terminally ill, mentally competent adults who have resided in Jersey for at least 12 months.
Whilst many celebrate the news as compassionate progress, opponents have described it as a leap into dangerous and uncertain territory.
Among the most vocal critics was the Jersey Dying Well Group, working alongside UK alliance Care Not Killing, which said the vote “is not the end of the process”.
The group warned that major legal and constitutional hurdles remain, including compliance with the European Convention on Human Rights and whether the new law is compatible with the UK’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
Care Not Killing chief executive Dr Gordon Macdonald warned: “Before the Health Minister Tom Binet does a victory lap for legalising assisted suicide and euthanasia in Jersey, he would do well to remember that the bill faces many challenges.”
He questioned whether the legislation adequately protects “the vulnerable, disabled people and those at risk of being coerced”.
“There are also significant unanswered questions with the [law] as to how it will operate with many doctors, including those who visit the Island to provide specialist services, indicating that they do not want to be involved in killing their patients,” said Dr Macdonald.
Jersey Dying Well chairman Dr John Stewart-Jones said the organisation remained firmly opposed to assisted dying in any form and cautioned Islanders about the “many implications of a change to the law, not least the financial and practical ones”.
He also pointed to previous statements from the Association of Palliative Medicine of Great Britain and Ireland, saying 85% of its specialist members had stated they would not be involved in physician-assisted suicide or euthanasia.
Professor Kate Woodthorpe, co-director of the Centre for Death and Society at the University of Bath, said that for many people the change would come as “positive news and even something of a relief” but warned that access may be limited.
“My concern however is that being able to discuss assisted dying as an option relies on self-advocacy and a prognosis that has a degree of predictability, which means that many people won’t either qualify or feel able to talk about the prospect of ending their own life with confidence,” she explained.
Prof Woodthorpe also called for equal energy to be devoted to funding and resourcing social and palliative care, so that people can access a meaningful quality of life until natural death.
Deputy Binet, who has led the push for reform, said it had been “a very long process” and he was “very pleased that we’ve got the result”.
He praised the “quality of the debate” and the respect shown on both sides, but acknowledged: “We do need to spare a thought for the people for whom this is going to be discomforting, even though it is probably a minority.”
