British Court Rules that Competent and Conscious Patient Can Be Denied Life-Sustaining Treatment Against Her Will


221 thoughts on “British Court Rules that Competent and Conscious Patient Can Be Denied Life-Sustaining Treatment Against Her Will”

  1. Mr Turley, thanks for the article on ST which I read elsewhere originally. The story has found its way onto the conservative woman website today, with some analogies to the theme of Joseph Heller’s great book, Catch 22.

    In the UK, the Court of Protection (no laughing!) is frequently heard in camera as with the ST case. The ruling means that neither the names of ST and her family nor the hospital and doctors can be named in the UK by anyone without committing contempt of court, a serious offence.

    There may well be reasons why ST and her family do not want to be named but given the pathway chosen for her by the doctors, the hospital and the court, against the wishes of her and her family, I doubt it. They must be desperate for just a small glimmer of hope.

    However, there are no good reasons why the hospital and doctors should not be named in jurisdictions beyond the Court’s reach, given the First Amendment protection provided by the Constitution.


    First Austria blamed doctors for Covid vax injuries and now New Zealand PM is telling citizens not to look at him or the government if you have a vax injury;

    it was your personal decision to get the shot. Nothing to do with us.

    This PM is the same person who as a minister imposed vaccine mandates.

    It is not going over well. Meanwhile Pfizer executives refuse to tell legislators how many of their employees quit rather than get the jab.

    Medicine by government diktat really isn’t the way to go, as Professor Turley’s article shows.

  3. Unfortunately, this line of thinking goes deeper than one might expect. In the medical world life is viewed through the lens of materialism and monism which tends to be reductionistic and the valuation of human life then is judged by its function. So, our judge’s decision might make for good science but clearly, he does not view human life as most do. And when the power to treat or not treat is left to the courts, it can turn out to be a cold heartless logic which makes the decision.

  4. Coming soon to a quickly-turning-socialist country near you:
    1. You/your child, are/is so sick, we’re going to terminate treatment so you/he/she will die rather than be a burden on The State ™
    2. Further, the hospital has secured a “transparency order” from the Ministry of Truth that forbids you/he/she from publicly transparently discussing the matter

    Your opinion/facts will not alter this decision, because The State has decided the matter for you. Please check the appropriate box below:

    ___ I have read, understand, and agree with The State’s decision, or

    ___ I have read, understand, and agree with The State’s decision

    Thank you in advance for your agreement to, and compliance with, these terms. Likewise we, in advance, offer our sincere condolences to you/your child. Have a nice day.

    {insert perfunctory closing salutation here}

    **PAPERWORK REDUCTION ACT NOTICE: We have intentionally made this form brief because it is just a formality and The State is not concerned with you as an individual

  5. This horrific situation is akin to the case involving a child several years ago. After reaching the limit of British medical expertise, the parents of a critically ill boy wanted to seek medical treatment in the US but we’re prohibited from taking their own son abroad for care. There’s a lot to appreciate about our British cousins but how they handle medical care exceptions is laughable.

Leave a Reply