Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 19th September 2025 Lords Chamber

[Baroness Foster of Aghadrumsee (Non-Afl)]

My Lords, I want to speak briefly to the concern of feeling a burden to one’s carers and the impact that will have if the Bill passes, which has been mentioned by many of the speakers this morning.

As many of your Lordships across this House know, caregivers are the very best of us. We can all attest to stories of people we know who have given everything to support their loved ones. Imagine an elderly parent, aware of the sacrifices that their child is making to care for them, thinking to themselves that they would be better off dead. This thought may be fleeting or it may take root. The very existence of this piece of legislation gives legitimacy to those thoughts. By legalising assisted suicide, you de facto make the statement that some desires to end your life are justified.

The guilt someone receiving care feels will never be isolated or separate from their desire for an assisted death. Since the Oregon Death with Dignity Act came into effect in 1998, until the end of 2024, 46.6% of those who had chosen to end their lives, when asked for the reason why, cited being a

“burden on family, friends/caregivers”.

Of course, if the Bill is made law, we will not know why people choose to end their lives, as that is not in the Bill. This guilt people feel stands in stark contrast to the ideals of choice and autonomy that proponents of the Bill have attempted to set out to the House both last Friday and today.

Caring for a terminally or chronically ill loved one is undeniably hard. Carers make sacrifices every day, emotionally, physically and financially. The recent impact assessment is explicit about what the Bill might mean for carers. It says, in a chilling paragraph:

“One of the reported benefits of VAD services to unpaid carers is the reduction in time spent providing care for the terminally ill adult who chooses to end their own life. Evidence suggests that providing unpaid care, particularly at higher intensities, is associated with negative physical and mental health outcomes, and employment impacts”.


The impact assessment also set out that a person privately funding their residential nursing care pays on average £1,567 a week and that someone paying for care at home could be paying £32 an hour. This financial impact compounds the already present emotional burden of terminal illness for both the individual and their unpaid carers. But they should never, under our law, feel pressured towards a premature death. Today, it should be a cause for great sadness that we are discussing how to help people die sooner rather than how to support them to live more comfortably, and to support those who care for their family members.

My own loved and precious mother died in June of this year. Rather than feeling a burden, however, she was surrounded by the most excellent care, in her residential home and then latterly in the South West Acute Hospital in Enniskillen. The palliative care she received at the end of her life was compassionate, pain-relieving and such a comfort to her and to us, her family. I want that care and compassion for all who are dying, not just some, and I certainly do not want someone like my mother feeling that they have to end their life prematurely because they are a burden to the taxpayer, their carers or their family. No one should feel pressured toward death because of financial strain or emotional guilt. There is no safeguard against the silent pressures of care. No clause can protect against the internalised belief that one’s life is too costly, too demanding or too much.

Today we debate how to help people die sooner. But we should be asking how to help them live better—and how to support those who care for them. Creating a burden to die because we have not addressed the burden of care is not a legacy I want for this House.