As a phrase, 'in-memoriam giving' is perhaps not the most inspiring. Yet, one way or another describes the motivation for a vast amount of the income hospices receive.

When I joined Princess Alice Hospice back in 1995, the dominant view in the sector could be summed up as 'We're proud of our care, but it's distasteful to ask grieving families for money. If they want to give, they will.'

Much has changed in the last thirty years. But this belief is still there sometimes. It's an instinct born of concern and deserves to be taken seriously. But it rests on an assumption that giving is something we take from the bereaved. 

A growing body of research suggests the opposite: that making a gift in memory of someone you love can be genuinely, measurably good for you.

What the research actually shows

The study that first crystallised this for me was by Canadian academics Sara Penner and Kelley Main, published in 2021. They found that in-mem donations provide real value to people in their grieving process. Donors wanted their loved one's name attached to the gift to preserve their memory. And while participants naturally described deep sadness at their loss, they radiated happiness when talking about the donation itself.

I wrote about this research when it first caught my eye. See here. Everything published since has strengthened the picture.

The strongest UK evidence comes from Marie Curie, working with researchers at the Universities of Edinburgh and Leeds. Their full report published in 2025 – interviewed eighteen people who had fundraised in memory of a loved one cared for by the charity's palliative care services. 

The findings are clear. Fundraising helped people make meaning after loss: honouring the person who died, expressing gratitude, giving back. It strengthened social connections with family and friends and created new ones – crucial for reducing the loneliness that so often follows bereavement.

And every single participant reported an improvement in their subjective wellbeing, from distraction and renewed focus in the raw early days to lasting positive memories and a deep sense of achievement. 

Tellingly for those of us in the sector, the report also confronts the reluctance within charities to talk to beneficiaries about fundraising, and calls for exactly that conversation to be opened up.

Furthermore, a 2025 study in the Journal of Philanthropy interviewed bereaved donors at a UK hospice. The authors found that in‑memory giving supports people through bereavement by offering distraction in the early stages of grief, helping them maintain a continuing bond with the person who has died, and gradually becoming less central as they move forward in life. 

Donors are strongly motivated by gratitude, reciprocity, and a new awareness of the hospice’s needs, often wanting to “pay back” or ensure future access to care. Positive relationships with hospice staff and fundraisers deepen trust and loyalty, making donors feel connected both to the organisation and to their loved one. 

Overall, the study recommends more personalised stewardship because donor needs and motivations shift significantly over the course of the bereavement journey.

Gratitude is powerful: the 'grateful patient' movement

If gratitude is the engine of in-memory giving – as the above studies all show – then hospices should take note of a parallel development in healthcare fundraising. 

'Grateful Patient Fundraising' originated in the United States, where it has long been a mainstay of hospital philanthropy. It's now gaining real traction in the UK, particularly in the NHS.

The premise is simple and deeply relevant to hospices: patients and families who have received exceptional care often want to express their gratitude, and offering them a well-supported route to do so is a service, not an intrusion. 

Hospices – whose in-memory donors are, in essence, grateful families – have been practising this for decades. The NHS is now learning the lesson - and proving very successful in doing so. We should not unlearn it.

An ethical question 

The benefit lies in giving that is invited, chosen and meaningful – never pressured. Which is precisely what excellent in-memory stewardship looks like: warm acknowledgement, genuine opportunities to remember, and a door left open. The ethical question facing hospices isn't really 'is it right to ask the bereaved?' It's 'is it right to deny them the invitation?'

If you still treats in-memory giving as a transaction to be handled delicately and then filed away, you are not protecting the bereaved. You may be withholding something the evidence suggests helps them: a way to keep a bond alive, to make meaning from loss, and to feel the quiet lift that comes from helping the next family through your doors.

In-memory giving as a matter of donor experience and bereavement support, rather than income? The two are not in tension. Done well, they are the same thing.