UK court overturns judgment against teen pulled off life support, denied treatment abroad
A U.K. court has overturned a prior judgment that had pulled 19-year-old Sudiksha Thirumalesh off life support and denied her the opportunity for treatment abroad. The court ruled against the decision by the Court of Protection, which had previously determined that Sudiksha lacked the mental capacity to make her own medical decisions.
Despite her passing, the Court of Appeal took the rare step of permitting a posthumous appeal by Sudiksha’s parents. The judgment delivered by Lady Justice King, alongside Lord Justice Singh and Lord Justice Baker, stated that a patient’s disagreement with their doctors does not equate to mental incompetence, said the U.K.-based group Christian Concern, whose arm, the Christian Legal Centre, supported the case.
Sudiksha, an A-level student, had contested her doctors’ views at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham, arguing that her condition, a rare genetic mitochondrial disease, did not impair her mental capabilities, despite its severe physical manifestations, including muscle weakness, hearing loss and kidney damage necessitating regular dialysis.
Get Our Latest News for FREE
The case reached a critical juncture in August 2023, when the Court of Protection ruled that Sudiksha’s disagreement with her medical prognosis demonstrated a lack of mental capacity, thereby allowing her medical decisions to be made by others based on her “best interests.” The decision, however, was tragically followed by her death in September 2023.
“It is essential always for any person conducting a capacity assessment” to remember that, under the Mental Capacity Act, a “person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because he makes an unwise decision,” Lady Justice King stated.
In overturning the judgment, the appellate court also pointed to a critical oversight by Justice Roberts in the original ruling. Despite the unanimous agreement of two psychiatrists who affirmed Sudiksha’s mental capacity, Justice Roberts sided with the intensive care team, who labeled Sudiksha’s insistence on seeking alternative treatment as delusional.
The Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham was previously criticized in a BBC investigation as “toxic” and “mafia-like.” Sudiksha had expressed a desire to travel to Canada for experimental treatment, hoping for a chance at recovery. However, severe reporting restrictions imposed by the secretive Court of Protection had hampered her family’s efforts to fundraise for this cause until after her death, Christian Concern said.
CLC’s Chief Executive Andrea Williams said, “Good law and good healthcare promote and protect life and do not create loopholes to ‘choose’ or impose death.” She praised Sudiksha’s clear vision and determination to fight for her life, which starkly contrasted with the NHS and Court of Protection’s approach that pushed her toward palliative care.
The ruling now sets a precedent, affirming the rights of patients to maintain hope and make independent medical decisions without being deemed mentally ill for disagreeing with professional medical opinions, CLC said.
MIND, a mental health charity that intervened in the case, argued against the dangerous precedent set by the initial judgment. They, along with Sudiksha’s parents, have called for an urgent review of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 to prevent similar cases from occurring.
Sudiksha’s parents, still grieving from their loss, expressed their gratitude for the court’s acknowledgment of the mistakes made in their daughter’s case.
“This case should have never been taken to the courts,” they said. “Sudiksha clearly had capacity to make her own decisions, and it was only the toxic paternalism of the Trust which caused them [to] seek to overrule Sudiksha’s wishes in the Courts. We did not want this legal battle, which ruined our lives and deprived Sudiksha of her chance to raise funds and see if nucleoside treatment could save her. Alas, the belated recognition of some of the errors made in her case cannot bring her back.
