Blog9th March 2026
Whilst the ethical debate around assisted dying has remained intense over the last few decades, it currently seems at its sharpest as moves to legal reform in and around the UK gain substantial momentum. Bills to legalise some form of assisted dying are currently before the Westminster and Scottish Parliaments, and approved bills in the Crown Dependencies of Jersey and the Isle of Man await Royal Assent.
The NCOB is committed to public engagement as a significant element of its vision to embed ethics at the centre of policy decision-making that is informed by ‘evidence about what matters to people concerning the issues at stake’. Listening to the parliamentary debates in each jurisdiction, the presence of strong voices on either side of the debate has been consistent throughout. Parliamentarians have referred to their constituents’ and their own lived experiences of loved ones’ deaths, good and bad, bringing home the fact that assisted dying is a subject that has the potential to affect any one of us. Assisted dying exemplifies a bioethical issue that resonates powerfully with the public, and this should make public engagement a vital part of any process that might result in legal reform.
Former NCOB chair David Archard observed in his blog on ethical preparedness that ‘The public are highly capable of grasping moral matters’. But in an era where misinformation is readily accessible via social media and other online sources, informing and helping to shift public understanding of bioethical controversies is more imperative than ever. Citizens’ juries are not only a tool through which this can be achieved, but also an increasingly valued means of obtaining evidence for law and policymakers of the ethical and social issues that most concern the public. As explained by the NCOB – who are currently working to bring public voices into deliberations on the 14 day rule for human embryo research – ‘Citizens’ Juries consist of a representative group of citizens randomly selected to deliberate on a particular issue and provide recommendations to inform public policy. They place members of the public at the heart of processes.’
The Jersey States Assembly’s recent approval of the draft assisted dying law is one of the final steps in a lengthy journey to legalisation. A crucial early development was the (then) Minister for Health and Social Services’ commitment to establishing a Citizens’ jury following public consultation in 2019, to inform the subsequent States Assembly debates. This was formed in 2021, comprising of 23 Islanders randomly selected to demographically represent the Jersey population, and answer the question: should assisted dying be permitted in Jersey and, if so, under what circumstances? With Involve’s facilitation, over ten meetings, jury members heard evidence from expert witnesses with professional expertise and witnesses with lived experience. Throughout the process, jury members were engaged, listened critically to the evidence, and they were keen to ask further questions of the witnesses. 78% of these jury members agreed that assisted dying should be permitted in Jersey under certain circumstances, and ultimately, there was clear alignment between some of the key jury recommendations and the approved draft law.
In 2024, the NCOB’s own Citizens’ Jury on Assisted Dying, facilitated by Hopkins van Mil, brought together 30 residents from across England, to deliberate on the question of whether the law in England should be changed to permit assisted dying. The jury heard from a variety of expert witnesses and speakers over 7 sessions, spread across 6 weeks
The jury’s final report -a testimony to their commitment to carefully examine the evidence- was published a year ago, and since then the NCOB has been working to ensure that Westminster Parliamentarians are aware of and considering this evidence.
The majority of the jury ‘largely agreed with or provided recommendations that are included in the [Westminster] Bill.’
Notwithstanding the recognition of their value, research exploring citizens’ juries’ impact on policy and practice has emphasised the gap that can often exist between juries’ recommendations and measurable policy impact. The persuasiveness of jury recommendations is strengthened by ensuring a robust process, with independent oversight to ensure balanced evidence and sufficient time for jury deliberations, as occurred for both the Jersey and NCOB assisted dying juries. In the States Assembly and Westminster debates and beyond, it was heartening to hear recognition given to the citizens juries’ recommendations. This is surely the key: there must be a genuine commitment to realising the value of citizens’ juries by law and policy makers as a means of democratic public involvement in the process towards a potential significant legal shift on matters of great ethical and social weight.
In my experiences supporting the members of the Jersey and NCOB juries along with Dr Alexandra Mullock (University of Manchester), the serious, careful deliberation of all jury members and the respect with which they listened to each others’ views – even if vastly different to their own – were exceptional. What should also be recognised is the importance of consultation to jury members who give up their time and put such considered effort into their task. To finish with the words of two members of the NCOB jury:
I’d say this process has definitely shifted something. I’ve never been consulted about anything that mattered before.”
Helen, Jury Member
For me this, this Jury is the start of a conversation. You’d expect people to have enough research, statistics, like we are. Shouldn’t more people, from all parts of society be given the option to discuss this? Wouldn’t that be valuable?”
Jury Member, Session 6
Related projects
-
Public engagement