Doctors are planning legal action against the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) over its continued opposition to assisted dying. 

The legal challenge is being led by Professor Aneez Esmail and Sir Sam Everington, and is being supported by the Good Law Project and Dignity in Dying. 

They claim that the RCGP Council's decision to maintain a position of opposition to assisted suicide defies the support for a change among doctors. 

The RCGP announced that it would remain opposed to the legalisation of assisted suicide in February after surveying 6,674 members across the UK.

Nearly half (47%) of the GPs surveyed said they were opposed to the RCGP adopting a position of support for assisted dying, while around one in 10 (11%) said they wanted the RCGP to adopt a neutral position on the issue, and 40% said the organisation should support the legalisation of assisted dying if there is a regulatory framework and appropriate safeguarding processes in place. Two per cent of respondents abstained from answering.

The RCGP responded to the outcome of the survey by saying it would retain a position of opposition to assisted suicide and focus on palliative care. 

In a letter to the Council, Prof Esmail and Sir Sam said the RCGP's decision was "irrational". 

It "failed to take into account relevant factors and took into account irrelevant factors", they added. 

They cite the findings of a new poll of 1,000 GPs across the UK by medeConnect in July, in which 38% said the RCGP should adopt a neutral stance, and a fifth said it should support the legalisation of assisted suicide.  Around a third (35%) said the body should remain opposed. 

Professor Aneez Esmail said the RCGP's continued opposition was "unrepresentative". 

"The RCGP Council's decision to remain opposed to assisted dying goes against the views of its members and goes against the entire purpose of asking their members at all," he said.

"The survey was intended to find out if RCGP members had changed their views since 2013 and there is undeniable evidence that they had.

"Those who backed the College's position dropped by almost half, alongside an eight-fold increase in those who wanted the College to support a change in the law. If that doesn't represent a shift in views, what on earth would?" 

He added: "The profession deserves a body that represents their views, rather than ignores them." 

Jolyon Maugham, Director of Good Law Project said: "The RCGP's decision to ignore the views of the majority of its members does raise real questions around its governance.

"The lack of transparency around how it came to this decision, and who precipitated it, is further cause for alarm. As it seems to me, the RCGP is failing in its obligation fairly to represent the views of its members on assisted dying.

"This issue is one of profound importance, and I do hope it revisits the decision urgently."

RCGP's decision to remain opposed to assisted suicide was welcomed by Christian and pro-life groups. 

Dr Mark Pickering, CEO of the Christian Medical Fellowship, said that legalising assisted suicide would "fundamentally alter the doctor-patient relationship".

He said the current law protected vulnerable people and should not be changed.

"Those campaigning for a change in the law have pushed hard for the RCGP to go neutral, so they could have presented this to Parliament and the public as 'doctors dropping their opposition'," he said.

"Despite variations of views amongst GPs, the clear main view is that of opposition to law change. Many doctors recognise the dangers of changing laws designed to protect terminally ill and disabled people from feeling pressure, real or perceived, to end their lives."

He added: "The current laws protecting vulnerable people represent a natural boundary and do not need changing. Instead we need to refocus our attention on providing the very best palliative care to all who need it, and ending the current postcode lottery on palliative care."