Medics call for temporary laws to protect health workers from coronavirus legal action

Support us and go ad-free

Emergency legislation is needed to protect doctors and nurses from “inappropriate” legal action over coronavirus (Covid-19) treatment decisions made amid the pressures of the pandemic, health organisations have argued.

A coalition of health bodies has written to the government urging it to update the law. This would be to ensure medical workers don’t feel “vulnerable to the risk of prosecution for unlawful killing” when treating coronavirus patients “in circumstances beyond their control”.

“Very substantial” risk of ICUs being overwhelmed

Health groups argued that there’s no legal protection for coronavirus-related issues. Such as when there are “surges in demand for resources that temporarily exceed supply”.

The letter, addressed to health secretary Matt Hancock, was co-ordinated by the Medical Protection Society (MPS). It’s also been signed by the British Medical Association, Doctors’ Association UK, the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association, the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh, the British Association of Physicians of Indian Origin and Medical Defence Shield.

It comes as PM Boris Johnson warned this week there was a “very substantial” risk of hospital intensive care units being overwhelmed from the latest wave of coronavirus cases.

Lack of legal protection

The letter highlighted that in November, Johnson had warned of a “medical and moral disaster” if the NHS was overwhelmed. He said “doctors and nurses could be forced to choose which patients to treat, who would live and who would die”.

Read on...

The health groups wrote:

With the chief medical officers now determining that there is a material risk of the NHS being overwhelmed within weeks, our members are worried that not only do they face being put in this position but also that they could subsequently be vulnerable to a criminal investigation by the police.

They said that despite there being guidance covering decisions on whether to administer or withdraw treatment, this “neither provides nor claims to provide legal protection”.

“The first concern of a doctor is their patients”

The letter added:

It also does not consider Covid 19-specific factors such as if and when there are surges in demand for resources that temporarily exceed supply.

There is no national guidance, backed up by a clear statement of law, on when life sustaining treatment can be lawfully withheld or withdrawn from a patient in order for it to benefit a different patient, and if so under what conditions.

The first concern of a doctor is their patients and providing the highest standard of care at all times.

We do not believe it is right that healthcare professionals should suffer from the moral injury and long-term psychological damage that could result from having to make decisions on how limited resources are allocated, while at the same time being left vulnerable to the risk of prosecution for unlawful killing.

The health groups said no healthcare professional should be “above the law”. And they added that emergency legislation should only apply to decisions “made in good faith” and “in circumstances beyond their control and in compliance with relevant guidance”.

They said the emergency law would be temporary and apply retrospectively from the start of the pandemic.

Letter to doctors in November

In November, the UK’s chief medical officers, the NHS, the General Medical Council (GMC) and medical royal colleges wrote to doctors. They urged them to be flexible during the pandemic’s second wave, which may require them to work outside their usual practice.

The letter said regulators, such as the GMC, would “take into account” the environment doctors are working in. It added that “due consideration” would be given to “difficult circumstances” they might face.

Covid-19 patients in hospital in England
(PA Graphics)


A survey of some 2,420 MPS members was conducted between 8 and 12 January. It found that 61% were concerned about facing an investigation as a result of a clinical decision made in a high-pressure environment.

Some 36% were concerned about being investigated following a decision to “withdraw or withhold life prolonging treatment due to capacity and resource constraints during the pandemic”.

We know everyone is suffering under the Tories - but the Canary is a vital weapon in our fight back, and we need your support

The Canary Workers’ Co-op knows life is hard. The Tories are waging a class war against us we’re all having to fight. But like trade unions and community organising, truly independent working-class media is a vital weapon in our armoury.

The Canary doesn’t have the budget of the corporate media. In fact, our income is over 1,000 times less than the Guardian’s. What we do have is a radical agenda that disrupts power and amplifies marginalised communities. But we can only do this with our readers’ support.

So please, help us continue to spread messages of resistance and hope. Even the smallest donation would mean the world to us.

Support us