When the British Islamic Medical Association (BIMA) first began discussing assisted dying, we knew this was not just another policy consultation. For many of us as Muslim healthcare professionals, this issue reached deep into our ethical instincts, spiritual understanding, and lived experiences on NHS wards with patients at the edge of life.
In recent months, the conversation around assisted dying has gained significant momentum in the UK, reigniting complex debates about autonomy, compassion, and the role of healthcare in end-of-life care. As the British Islamic Medical Association (BIMA), we found ourselves drawn into this national conversation, not as passive observers, but as a proactive voice advocating for ethical clarity, protecting the vulnerable, and the sanctity of life.
The assisted dying debate is not easy terrain for any healthcare professional – Muslim or otherwise. It touches on deeply personal questions of suffering, dignity, and the value of life. As healthcare professionals, this engagement required us to hold space for the tension between respecting individual choice and the duty to “first do no harm” in relation to vulnerable patients we care for, while remaining rooted in Islamic ethical principles. Our members, many of whom care for patients and families facing loss and bereavement, brought forward stories of compassion, challenges, and the real-life consequences of policy decisions.
As a Muslim healthcare organisation, we felt a duty to represent the concerns of Muslim healthcare professionals and patients, many of whom fear the societal shift towards seeing death as a solution to suffering. The Islamic worldview upholds the sanctity of life, encourages holistic care, and promotes hope even in the face of terminal illness. Yet, we also recognised the importance of empathy in public dialogue, avoiding judgmental rhetoric and instead offering constructive contributions grounded in both clinical evidence and professional experience.
A Voice for the Vulnerable
One of the defining aspects of BIMA’s engagement was highlighting the risks that legalising assisted dying could pose to marginalised groups, including ethnic minorities, disabled people, and those with limited access to quality palliative care. The concerns are not hypothetical. We listened to testimonies from Muslim healthcare staff and families worried about systemic racism in healthcare deepening end-of-life inequities, the fear that legal changes could erode the already fragile trust between minority communities and the healthcare system, and about moral injury to doctors asked to end life rather than preserve it.
BIMA’s submissions and public statements emphasised these broader societal risks and practical detrimental consequences of the implementation of assisted suicide, rooted not only in Islamic teachings but in social justice. We advocated for improving palliative care, investing in palliative care services, and tackling health and social inequalities as ethical alternatives to the introduction of assisted suicide.
The Power, and Limits, of Engagement
This experience also invited reflection on the nature of advocacy itself. We learned that:
Faith-based organisations are often expected to speak only theologically. But our expertise is medical and social too, grounded in frontline reality – though sometimes our ethical perspective, rooted in faith traditions, meant our contributions risk being overlooked in broader public discussions.
Speaking up may come at a cost. To advocate against something framed as “compassionate choice” risks being labelled regressive. Yet silence would betray our duty of care to society.
Despite the challenges, it is important to be present in the public square. Muslim healthcare voices cannot afford to be silent, especially on issues that impact the vulnerable patients we care for on a daily basis. Our involvement allowed us to educate others about our perspective, but also to challenge ourselves to speak in a language that resonates across faith and non-faith lines – one of compassion, humanity, and dignity.
At the same time, it became clear that engagement has its limits. The assisted dying debate often privileges individual autonomy over communal well-being and very often overlooks the systemic failures that make people feel life is unliveable. As the debate in parliament on the assisted dying bill evolved, we left many conversations feeling that our work must go beyond reactive policy engagement, it must also nurture the infrastructure of compassionate care within our own communities.
Where Next?
The assisted dying debate will not disappear. If anything, it will intensify in the coming years. For BIMA, this journey reaffirmed our purpose:
To be a bridge between faith, medicine, and public life
To articulate compassionate clarity rooted in Islamic ethics and medical expertise
To remain present in public discourse not merely reacting but offering practical, hopeful solutions
We continue to call for equitable palliative care funding, holistic spiritual support, and end-of-life conversations that centre patient dignity without resorting to death as healthcare.
Dr Nadia Khan
Consultant in palliative medicine and BIMA Council Member