Baby Is Healed With World’s First Personalized Gene-Editing Treatment

Something was very wrong with Kyle and Nicole Muldoon’s baby.The doctors speculated. Maybe it was meningitis? Maybe sepsis?They got an answer when KJ was only a week old. He had a rare genetic disorder, CPS1 deficiency, that affects just one in 1.3 million babies. If he survived, he would have severe mental and developmental delays and would eventually need a liver transplant. But half of all babies with the disorder die in the first week of life.Doctors at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia offered the Muldoons comfort care for their baby, a chance to forgo aggressive treatments in the face of a grim prognosis.“We loved him, and we didn’t want him to be suffering,” Ms. Muldoon said. But she and her husband decided to give KJ a chance.Instead, KJ has made medical history. The baby, now 9 ½ months old, became the first patient of any age to have a custom gene-editing treatment, according to his doctors. He received an infusion made just for him and designed to fix his precise mutation.The investigators who led the effort to save KJ are presenting their work on Thursday at the annual meeting of the American Society of Cell & Gene Therapy, and are also publishing it in the New England Journal of Medicine.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read more →

Trump Budget Cuts Hobble Antismoking Programs

Students at Wyoming East High School in West Virginia’s coal country had different reasons for joining Raze, a state program meant to raise awareness about the health risks of tobacco and e-cigarettes.Cayden Oliver, 17, grew up around generations of people who smoked and vaped, and he wanted to make his own choice. Nathiah Brown, 18, was struggling to quit e-cigarettes and showed up for moral support. Kimberly Mills, 18, wanted to prove that even though she had been a foster child, she would defy the odds.This high school’s program cost West Virginia less than $3,000 a year and was meant to protect teenagers in the state that has the highest vaping rate in their age group. It fell prey to U.S. government health budget cuts that included hundreds of millions of dollars in tobacco control funds that reached far beyond Washington, D.C.At the high school, students pack into stalls in the school restrooms, sneaking puffs between classes. “It’s bad now,” said Logan Stacy, 18, a member of the Raze group. “Imagine what it will be like in two years.”Experts on tobacco control said the Trump administration’s funding cuts would set back a quarter-century of public health efforts that have driven the smoking rate to a record low and saved lives and billions of dollars in health care spending. Still, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention estimates that nearly 29 million people in the United States continue to smoke.The decimation of antismoking work follows a year of lavish campaign donations by tobacco and e-cigarette companies to President Trump and congressional Republicans.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read more →

Overhaul needed to prevent benefit claimants suffering harm, MPs say

10 hours agoShareSaveMichael BuchananSenior Social Affairs Correspondent BBC NewsShareSaveFamily picturesMPs are calling for a change in the law to prevent benefit claimants from suffering harm at the hands of the government department that is meant to help them.Several people have died in recent years after failures by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP).A cross-party committee of MPs says new legislation and “deep-rooted cultural change” at the DWP are needed to protect vulnerable clients.A DWP spokesperson said the government was “currently consulting on a new safeguarding approach” which “genuinely supports vulnerable people”. In recent years, the deaths of Errol Graham, Philippa Day and Kevin Gale have seen the DWP widely criticized for its handling of vulnerable clients. In Mr Gale’s case, the coroner highlighted “that current DWP procedures may not be practical for those with mental health illness and can exacerbate symptoms”. The inquest heard of the number and length of DWP forms that claimants were required to complete, the length of telephone queues for DWP advisers, and the requirement to travel long distances for appointments for people affected by mental health illness.Thursday’s report, from the Work and Pensions Select Committee, reveals the deaths of at least 274 people have been investigated internally by the DWP in since April 2015.Such inquiries – Internal Process Reviews – are launched when there is an allegation that a case has been mishandled by the DWP which has potentially contributed to serious harm or a safeguarding concern. During the same period, 58 reviews were opened into cases where customers suffered harm – but the MPs said the scale of the failings was likely to be greater.”That people continue to face harm after dealing with the DWP is a self-evident failure of safeguarding in the system,” said committee chair Debbie Abrahams MP. “Until recently, getting people back into work to cut costs had been prioritised over providing support and care for vulnerable people,” Ms Abrahams added. “We heard evidence that the process of engaging with the DWP… too often led to mental distress.”Deep-rooted cultural change of the DWP is desperately needed to rebuild trust and put safeguarding at the heart of policy development. “Introducing a statutory duty to safeguard vulnerable claimants for the department is a fundamental part of this.” A new law, holding the secretary of state accountable for safeguarding clients, would ensure that everyone saw it as their responsibility to protect claimants, says the committee.’Nasty and traumatic’Carl, 44, a former roofer from Croydon, south London, said his first interaction with the DWP “felt quite a nasty and traumatic experience”.He had struggled for 18 months with a degenerative back condition that had left him with mobility issues and constant pain, requiring strong painkillers. In 2018, after trying a variety of less manual roles, such as plastering and carpet fitting, he realised he could no longer hold down a job.He applied for universal credit, his first ever benefit application, which led to an appointment at his local job centre. Carl says the work coach was “very dismissive and patronising”.”He said: ‘If you want money from us, you’re going to have to jump through these hoops.’ “It almost felt like he was trying to imply that I was being dishonest and I was putting it on. “It was a very uncaring response. I wanted support to get a non-manual job.”‘Absolutely life-changing’ Shannon Johnstone, 28, who found herself sleeping rough about seven years ago before turning to the DWP for help, said the recommendations “are going to be absolutely life-changing for people… if they’re done right”. At the start of her claim, she remembers the DWP told her: “We can’t help with your homelessness,” which she says was understandable but off-putting. She does not know if they referred her case to homeless organisations as she was never told. Now she welcomes the recommendation to include the views of people with lived experience in the design, planning and implementation of DWP policy. “People who have gone through the system understand what it feels like to be interviewed by a [DWP] inspector,” says Shannon who now works for the charity, Expert Link.”They understand what it’s like to gather lots of paperwork, so by including them in the design of the system, it’s going to work so much better.”In a statement, the DWP said the government was committed to protecting the people who use its services “and fixing the broken welfare system we inherited so it works for those who need it”. “That’s why we are currently consulting on a new safeguarding approach and our reforms will improve people’s lives and rebuild trust, by establishing an approach that genuinely supports vulnerable people.”The spokesperson added that the government was encouraging people to have their voices heard in the consultation and help build a system “that works better for all”.

Read more →

Drug Overdose Deaths Plummeted in 2024, C.D.C. Reports

The progress comes as the Trump administration is proposing to cut funding for many programs believed to have contributed to the improvement.Overdose deaths in the United States fell by nearly 30,000 last year, the government reported on Wednesday, the strongest sign yet that the country is making progress against one of its deadliest, most intractable public health crises.The data, released by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, is the latest in a series of reports over the past year offering hints that the drug-related death toll that has gutted families and communities could be starting to ease.Public health experts had been carefully watching the monthly updates, with skepticism at first, and then with growing hope. Wednesday’s report was the most encouraging yet. Deaths declined in all major categories of drug use, stimulants as well as opioids, dropping in every state but two. Nationwide, drug fatalities plunged nearly 27 percent.“This is a decline that we’ve been waiting more than a decade for,” said Dr. Matthew Christiansen, a physician and former director of West Virginia’s drug control policy. “We’ve invested hundreds of billions of dollars into addiction.”Addiction specialists said that changes in the illicit drug supply as well as greater access to drug treatment and the use of naloxone to reverse overdoses seemed to be playing a role, but whether the country could sustain that progress was an open question.In announcing the new numbers, the C.D.C. praised President Trump, saying in a statement that since he “declared the opioid crisis a public health emergency in 2017” the government had added more resources to battle the drug problem.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read more →

U.S. Tells Court It Plans to Deport Scientist to Russia

Kseniia Petrova, a Harvard researcher, was detained Feb. 16 at Logan Airport after failing to declare scientific samples she carried into the U.S.Government lawyers told a federal judge on Wednesday that the Trump administration intends to deport a Harvard scientist back to Russia, a country she fled in 2022, despite her fear that she will be arrested there over her protest of Russia’s war in Ukraine.Kseniia Petrova, a researcher at Harvard Medical School, has been held in a Louisiana immigration detention facility since February, when she was detained at Boston’s airport for failing to declare scientific samples she was carrying in her luggage.This is the first time the government has formally stated its plan to deport her to Russia.In Wednesday’s hearing, Christina Reiss, chief judge of the United States District Court in Vermont, quizzed the government lawyers about their grounds for canceling Ms. Petrova’s visa and detaining her. Judge Reiss went on to schedule a bail hearing on May 28, potentially setting the stage for Ms. Petrova’s release.The case has drawn the attention of elite scientists around the world, and sent a chill though the community of international academics that surrounded Ms. Petrova at Harvard. Several dozen Harvard students and faculty made the drive to Burlington, Vt., for the hearing.“For every person that they detain, thousands of others are going to be scared of coming to the country,” said Leo Gerdén, a Harvard senior from Sweden.Ms. Petrova was detained at Logan Airport on Feb. 16 as she returned from vacation in France, carrying with her sections of frog embryos from an affiliate laboratory, at the request of her supervisor at Harvard.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read more →

RFK Jr. Defends HHS Overhaul as Democrats Denounce ‘War on Science’

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is testifying before Congress for the first time as health secretary on Wednesday. He has been grilled over President Trump’s cuts to public health agencies and research funding.Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. delivered a defiant defense on Wednesday of his drastic overhaul of federal health agencies as House Democrats accused him of violating the law by shuttering whole divisions and cutting funding appropriated by Congress for medical research.“We are not withholding money for lifesaving research!” Mr. Kennedy thundered at Representative Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, who lectured him on the language of the Constitution and Congress’s power of the purse.Ms. DeLauro looked disgusted. “Unbelievable,” she said, shaking her head. “Unbelievable.”The back-and-forth with Ms. DeLauro was just one of a series of fiery exchanges between Democratic lawmakers and Mr. Kennedy during his first appearance on Capitol Hill since becoming health secretary.The purpose of Wednesday’s hearing was for Mr. Kennedy to answer questions about President Trump’s health budget for the next fiscal year. But Democrats focused instead about the mass layoffs and cuts Mr. Kennedy is already making, which they have condemned as part of what they call Mr. Trump’s “war on science.”Mr. Trump has published only the broad outlines of his budget plan, which calls for deep cuts to the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. In his opening remarks to the House committee, Mr. Kennedy said the cuts will save money “without impacting critical services,” according to a copy of his remarks.The budget blueprint “recognizes the fiscal challenges our country faces today, and the need to update and redirect our investments to meet the needs of a rapidly changing world.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read more →

A.I. Was Coming for Radiologists’ Jobs. So Far, They’re Just More Efficient.

Experts predicted that artificial intelligence would steal radiology jobs. But at the Mayo Clinic, the technology has been more friend than foe.Nine years ago, one of the world’s leading artificial intelligence scientists singled out an endangered occupational species.“People should stop training radiologists now,” Geoffrey Hinton said, adding that it was “just completely obvious” that within five years A.I. would outperform humans in that field.Today, radiologists — the physician specialists in medical imaging who look inside the body to diagnose and treat disease — are still in high demand. A recent study from the American College of Radiology projected a steadily growing work force through 2055.Dr. Hinton, who was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics last year for pioneering research in A.I., was broadly correct that the technology would have a significant impact — just not as a job killer.That’s true for radiologists at the Mayo Clinic, one of the nation’s premier medical systems, whose main campus is in Rochester, Minn. There, in recent years, they have begun using A.I. to sharpen images, automate routine tasks, identify medical abnormalities and predict disease. A.I. can also serve as “a second set of eyes.”“But would it replace radiologists? We didn’t think so,” said Dr. Matthew Callstrom, the Mayo Clinic’s chair of radiology, recalling the 2016 prediction. “We knew how hard it is and all that is involved.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read more →

Benzo Withdrawal Symptoms Can Be Life-Threatening

The drugs treat disorders such as anxiety, panic attacks and insomnia, but stopping them abruptly can compound users’ symptoms and even endanger their lives.Tasha Hedges took Xanax for 20 years to treat her anxiety and panic attacks, exactly as a psychiatrist had prescribed it. Then in 2022, that doctor unexpectedly died.A general practitioner continued her prescription but retired shortly afterward. The next doctor moved to Canada. Finally, Ms. Hedges found a new psychiatrist.“The first thing he did was start yelling at me that I had been on Xanax too long,” said Ms. Hedges, 41, who lives in Falling Waters, W.Va. “He ripped me off my meds.”Discontinuing the drug typically requires decreasing the dose slowly over months or even years, a process called tapering. Ms. Hedges stopped cold turkey. Debilitating withdrawal symptoms followed: hot flashes, cold sweats, restless legs, the shakes and teeth grinding.“It was a nightmare,” she said. Two years after discontinuing the medication, she is still dealing with the fallout. “My brain has not been the same.”In social media groups and websites such as BenzoBuddies, people like Ms. Hedges say they have become physically dependent on benzodiazepines. Many then get cut off from their medication or taper too quickly, and face dangerous and potentially life-threatening withdrawal symptoms that can linger long after the drugs are discontinued. Some doctors, fearful of the risks and stigma associated with these drugs, refuse to prescribe them at all.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Read more →

For, against, undecided: Three GPs give their views on assisted dying

23 minutes agoShareSaveCatherine BurnsHealth correspondentVicki LoaderHealth producerShareSaveBBCIf you ask these three doctors about being GPs, their answers are remarkably similar.”It can be the best job in the world,” one tells me. It’s “a privilege” another says. They all talk about how they love getting to know their patients and their families.But all three have different views on assisted dying.Right now, the law here is clear: medics cannot help patients to take their own lives. But that could change.The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill is being debated in Parliament. And if it goes through, it will give some terminally ill patients in England and Wales the option of an assisted death.Here, three doctors – Abdul Farooq, Susi Caesar and Gurpreet Khaira, who all have a different view on assisted dying – tell us how they feel about the proposals.’A red line I would never cross’Dr Abdul Farooq is 28 and relatively new to his career as a GP.We meet at his home in east London. He gives his baby daughter a bottle of milk before heading around the corner to pray in his local mosque.His religion is absolutely key to his views on assisted dying.”I believe in the sanctity of life. As a Muslim, I believe that life is a gift from God, and that no one has the right to take that away,” he says.Dr Farooq feels taking your own life is wrong, and so, he says, it would be “sinful” for him to be involved in that process – even indirectly.If this law passed – and a patient came to him asking for help to die – he would refer them to another doctor.He says anything beyond that would be “a red line I would never cross”.Dr Farooq’s objections are also informed by his professional experience, particularly his time working in a hospital.He describes seeing “undignified deaths” – people passing away on busy wards – and says the health system is not getting the basics right in end-of-life care.”There is so much we can do to make patients comfortable, if we have the right resources available,” he tells me.”We have a whole field of medicine called palliative medicine that is there to help people towards the end of their life. So why are we not throwing all our resources and money into that and actually making the process of death less scary?”He’s also concerned about specific parts of the proposed law. Doctors would have to assess if terminally ill patients are expected to die within six months before they are approved for an assisted death.Dr Farooq sees this as problematic. The final day or so is easy to predict, he says, but adds that some patients he’s expected to die within six months can still be alive a year later.Is there anything that could change his mind on assisted dying?”No,” Dr Farooq says without hesitation. “I’m strongly against it. Personally and professionally, I think it’s the wrong thing to do for patients.”‘I’ll be at the front of the queue to help’Dr Susi Caesar has been a GP for 30 years and thinks she probably wouldn’t have previously been so vocal in her support of assisted dying.Now, she says she is ready to “stick her head above the parapet”.Recently she lost her beloved dad, Henning. We meet at a lake near Cirencester because being near water reminds her of him.”My father was the most amazing person and this is so evocative of everything he loved,” she says. “The outdoors, walks, sailing, boats, kayaking, swimming.”She thinks Henning would be proud of her for talking to us about her views because he was a long-term believer in assisted dying.When he was diagnosed with a terminal illness, Dr Caesar says he became “terribly scared about the manner of his dying”.”My father was a very proud man, and the thing that was unbearable to him was the idea that he would lose control at the end of his life – of his bodily functions, of his mind, of his ability to be the person that he was.”By the end, Dr Caesar says her father’s “medication never quite kept up with his symptoms.” For her, the argument over assisted dying comes down to patient choice.”Everybody is going to die. Every individual deserves the comfort of choice about how they die. I would want it for myself,” she tells me.She acknowledges that many of her colleagues have “very, very reasonable concerns” about assisted dying. But she says “we have the wisdom to set up systems that will work and get over some of these hurdles.”I ask if Dr Caesar’s support for assisted dying would translate into her working in this area.”I will be at the front of the queue to help people to have the death that they wanted,” she says. “I think that’s the core joy of my job – being with people to the very end of their health journey.”‘A very guilty place’Dr Gurpreet Khaira doesn’t have any of the certainty of Dr Farooq and Dr Caesar.She describes herself as “pretty conflicted about the whole subject” of assisted dying.Dr Khaira is a GP in Birmingham but also has first-hand experience as a patient.In 2017, she was diagnosed with breast cancer. She found chemotherapy gruelling and says if the cancer ever came back, she wouldn’t want to go through it again.”I remember feeling very passionate that I should have the choice of whether I go through this kind of treatment, or to say ‘that’s enough now’,” she says.She says it felt very important for her to have a choice about the end of her life.Now, she’s a picture of health, striding along a hillside with ease.As a GP with decades of experience, she worries that vulnerable patients might opt for assisted dying rather than be a burden to their loved ones. Or that some families might coerce vulnerable patients into it.”That is one of my biggest areas of personal conflict. I know that there are lots of plans to put safeguards in.”You can be the best doctor or advocate in the world, but you may not pick up where someone is being controlled or manipulated.”For her, there’s a fundamental conflict between her personal and professional experiences.But, she adds: “As a doctor, I’d be very reluctant to be handing over a syringe for a patient to make that choice.”Balancing up these two sides leaves her “in a very guilty place”, she says, but adds that it’s not a weakness to be open minded. For her, making this decision is an “evolving process”.Personal experience shaping opinionsIt’s striking when talking to Dr Farooq, Dr Caesar and Dr Khaira, how much their views on assisted dying reflect their core belief systems.In that respect, GPs are possibly much like the rest of us.If this bill does pass into law, doctors will have to consider whether they are willing to work in the area of assisted dying, or not. They could be asked to be involved in the process – whether that’s holding preliminary discussions with patients who want to die, to prescribing a substance for someone to end their own life.If they don’t want to, no-one will force them.They will have time to think about it. If MPs do vote in favour of this next month, it could still take years to come into effect.

Read more →

GPs split over assisted dying plans, BBC research suggests

13 minutes agoShareSaveCatherine BurnsHealth correspondentHarriet AgerholmData journalistShareSaveBBCFamily doctors in England are deeply divided on the issue of assisted dying, BBC research on plans to legalise the practice suggests.The findings give a unique insight into how strongly many GPs feel about the proposed new law – and highlight how personal beliefs and experiences are shaping doctors’ views on the issue.BBC News sent more than 5,000 GPs a questionnaire asking whether they agreed with changing the law to allow assisted dying for certain terminally ill people in England and Wales.More than 1,000 GPs replied, with about 500 telling us they were against an assisted dying law and about 400 saying they were in favour.Some of the 500 GPs who told us they were against the law change called the bill “appalling”, “highly dangerous”, and “cruel”. “We are doctors, not murderers,” one said.Of the 400 who said they supported assisted dying, some described the bill as “long overdue” and “a basic human right”.”We are keeping human bodies alive in the most inhumane manner,” one said. They asked: “How do we ethically justify forcing these bodies to continue to exist in decrepitude?”We cannot know whether the GPs who responded to the BBC are representative of all family doctors.It comes as MPs will this week again debate proposed changes to the controversial bill, with a vote in parliament expected on whether to pass or block it next month.If assisted dying does become legal in England and Wales, it would be a historic change for society.Current laws prevent medics from helping any patient to carry out their wish to die. The Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill would allow any doctor to be involved in assisted dying, but GPs are often a large part of the practice in other countries.The BBC’s research, carried out over a few weeks in March and April, is the first in-depth look at how GPs feel about the proposed new law.Nine out of 10 GPs who said they were against legalising assisted dying worried terminally ill patients would consider it because they felt guilty about being a burden on their loved ones or the health service.”The right to die becomes a duty to die for those who feel a burden on family,” said one GP.Another common concern was patients might be coerced. Some told us they had treated elderly people with family members they suspected of being more focussed on their inheritance than their relatives.More than half of the group who opposed a law change said it would be against their religious beliefs.They spoke about life being “sacred” and called assisted dying “sinful”. Some referred to the commandment “thou shalt not kill”.Another argument from those who said they were against assisted dying was the health system should instead focus on improving end-of-life care.One GP said creating an assisted dying law was “scandalous” when hospices were largely funded by charities rather than by the state.Separately, on Tuesday the Royal College of Psychiatrists said that while the group “remains neutral” on the principle of assisted dying, it “just cannot support this bill”.In an interview with BBC’s Newsnight, the college’s president Dr Lade Smith cited a lack of requirements concerning the “unmet needs” of patients, and a shortage of psychiatrists to process requests.”We’re concerned that there isn’t a requirement to think about any unmet needs a person might have. A person with a terminal illness… they may be in pain, they have difficulty with their housing, their finances because they haven’t been able to work, they might feel lonely, isolated,” Dr Smith said.Dr Gordon Macdonald, CEO of Care Not Killing said there was a “black hole” in the hospice budget and “we need better care not killing”.Dying with dignityMore than 400 GPs told us they supported a law change, with some describing feeling “traumatised” and “haunted” by watching people die in “severe pain or distress”.Of those who said they were in favour, more than nine in 10 respondents believed it could allow patients to have a dignified death.Some shared personal experiences: telling us about watching their parents losing dignity or begging to die. One said their sick wife prayed every evening to not wake up in the morning.Those who backed assisted dying often spoke about patient choice, arguing it was patronising not to let people decide how they wanted to die.Wanting the option of an assisted death for themselves or their loved ones was another common reason for supporting the law.”Personally, I would find this a comfort and I resent those who take this choice away from me,” one told us.’Unpredictable’ timeframeIf assisted dying does become law in England and Wales, it would apply to certain terminally ill patients who were reasonably expected to die within six months.But more than a quarter of all the GPs who responded told us they would rarely, or never be confident assessing if a patient was expected to die in that time frame.”It’s unpredictable even in the severely frail,” one said.No doctor would be obliged to work in assisted dying. Of the 1,000 GP respondents, more than 500 told us they would be willing to discuss assisted dying with a patient.Nearly 300 would assess if a patient was eligible and 161 said they would prepare a substance for a patient to take to end their own life.Legal risksProfessor Kamila Hawthorne, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said the BBC’s research showed GPs had “real concerns about the practical and legal implications of a change in the law on assisted dying”.”These must be acknowledged and addressed, so that any legislation is watertight,” she said.Sarah Wootton, chief executive of Dignity in Dying, said GPs and other medics will “rightly be considering how they will navigate” the proposed law.She said evidence from assisted dying laws in Australia and the US showed it could be carried out “safely and effectively, with far reaching benefits for end-of-life care and robust protections for both patients and doctors”.Additional reporting by Vicki Loader, Elena Bailey, Natalie Wright and Hannah Karpel

Read more →