Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Mary Kelly Foy Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 11th September 2026 Commons Chamber

[Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)]

We have heard much today about the legal, medical and ethical questions being raised by this Bill. For me, the idea of ignoring the warnings of the medical professions is absolutely baffling, but my remarks today will focus on poverty, inequality and what dignity really means at the end of life.

My daughter Maria has been in my mind throughout my considerations. Maria lived with severe cerebral palsy. She was non-verbal and required round-the-clock care. From the day she was born, we were told that she might have just six months to live, but she defied that and lived for 27 years, bringing immense joy to our family. It is because of Maria that I approach this debate with concern; I fear for non-verbal or vulnerable people, and I worry about those who do not have a trusted person to protect them or speak out for them.

I am sure that we all want to see dignity for those at the end of life, but we must ask ourselves what dignity really is. In these circumstances, dignity means being well cared for and supported, receiving the best possible treatment, and knowing that your life is valued. It is not dignified to feel pressured towards death because of the burdens of cost, or the social and economic pressures that accompany serious and terminal illness. When we talk about coercion, we often think of pressure from individuals, but the greater risk may be social coercion driven by inequalities that exist in our society.

[Dr Opher]

Will my hon. Friend give way briefly?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

Briefly, because my hon. Friend has made a few interventions already.

[Dr Opher]

Can I just say that there has not been one confirmed case of coercion in any of these jurisdiction anywhere in the world?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention, but he will find that there are statistics on that. In America, 8% of those who have been deemed to have chosen to end their life have faced huge financial difficulties.

[Daniel Francis]

The Kingston University research that I referred to earlier shows that in the Netherlands, people with learning disabilities cited being coerced into an assisted death. Does my hon. Friend share my concerns about that?

[Mary Kelly Foy]

I could not agree more—these issues have come to light in similar jurisdictions around the world.

We know that there is a greater risk of social coercion driven by the inequalities that people face. Under the current proposals, will the panel of experts be able to adequately assess the impact of the wider pressures of life? The truth is that when we talk about choice, the reality of making such a choice is very different for the wealthy than it is for others. Inequality shapes health outcomes throughout our lives, as well as the options available to people at the end of their life. The choices facing someone who is financially secure are very different from those facing someone on a low income, relying on benefits or struggling to make ends meet. As I say, evidence from other countries starkly highlights that such social and economic factors—including inequality in the provision of healthcare—are significant for those who are deemed to have chosen to end their life. We should not ignore that.

For more than a decade, we have seen public services come under strain, disability support reduced, and rising hardship for many families. During covid, we witnessed immense pressures on our health system, and I worry that we risk telling people that we cannot always guarantee the support needed to live well, but we can offer greater choice in death. Real choice can only come with high-quality care, strong support services and access to excellent palliative care. That would provide dignity, and it is our job—and a challenge for society—to deliver the chance of real dignity for those facing terminal illness.

The people most exposed to the risks within the Bill are often those who already face disadvantage: older people, women, those living in poverty and those with poor mental health. We live in a very unequal society; the wealthy are better protected from hardship, while others face pressures that can profoundly influence their decisions. I cannot be clear enough in saying that poverty should never be the reason for someone to choose to die.

I conclude by returning to Maria. While she will not be able to hear my remarks today, I know she would be pleased that I finally got to make my case, and I urge colleagues to bear in mind people like Maria when they cast their votes. If we are serious about dignity and choice, our first duty should be to improve care, strengthen support and tackle the inequalities that shape people’s lives.

[Several hon. Members rose—]