Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40318865›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2026

Why administration of lethal drugs should not be the role of the doctor.

Sally Barker, Zoë Fritz, Alexander Ruck Keene

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sally BarkerKing's College London, London, UK s.barker11@nhs.net.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0003-6289-0731
Zoë FritzTHIS Institute (The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute), University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9403-409X
Alexander Ruck Keene39 Essex Chambers, London, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The suitability of doctors as agents of assisting dying remains debated, although it is common in many jurisdictions, and forms part of the proposed assisted dying legislation for England and Wales.We examine the established philosophical and legal role of doctors in England and Wales and compare it to the active role required of doctors under proposed assisted dying legislation. For clarity, we refer to the latter role as 'assisted dying practitioner' (ADP). We interrogate two common claims: that (a) the role of doctors and ADPs holds normative conceptual analogy by virtue of shared goals to uphold autonomy and reduce suffering and (b) the practical skills required of ADPs are specific and exclusive to a doctor's training. Examination reveals that neither claim is justified and, despite both roles prioritising patient welfare, identifies significant conflict between their primary goals. The role of an ADP is philosophically and legally singular. To add a duty to the role of the doctor which is antithetical to their overall goal of cure and disease prevention disrupts the defining characteristic of being a doctor: this may have repercussions on who applies to medicine, how doctors are trained, interact with patients and are regulated. We do not advocate for or against assisted dying but propose that if it is to be taken forward in England and Wales, society would be more appropriately served by considering the role of an ADP as a novel profession whose goals, competencies, research base and regulation can be established independently.

Indexed as

PhysiciansPhysician's RoleSuicide, AssistedEnglandHumansWalesDeathEuthanasiaHealth Personnel

Identifiers

PMID40318865
PMCPMC13018763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.