A Christian family, gagged by a Court of Protection ‘transparency order’, are in a race against time to save the life of their 54-year-old mother and grandmother known only as “XY”, after a UK judge ruled that her right to live is ‘outweighed’ by the medical evidence and it is therefore in her ‘best interests’ to die.
The Court of Appeal has ordered the King’s College Hospital to withdraw an artificial airway and clinically-assisted nutrition and hydration from XY by no later than 4pm on Thursday 12 December.
It is expected that XY will either suffocate immediately if her airway becomes obstructed or die more slowly from dehydration and starvation as she will no longer be provided with feed of fluids.
With all domestic legal remedies exhausted, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, the family has urgently applied for Interim Measures from the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) to prevent the removal of care.
The Court’s decision was strongly opposed by XY’s large family, including her ex-partner, both children, granddaughter, grandson and two cousins.
The family told Mrs Justice Emma Arbuthnot they were convinced that, because of her personality and Christian beliefs, XY would have wanted to be kept alive and leave it to God to choose the time of her death. She is described by friends and family as a ‘vibrant character’ and a ‘pillar of her local church’.
However the judge has ruled that the evidence of the family and XY’s own wishes were “outweighed” by the medical opinion about her poor prognosis.
XY, who had worked in the NHS in a physically demanding role, had a heart attack on 6 May 2024 resulting in serious brain damage.
Since then, her neurological condition has improved, and the family members said they have experienced XY reacting to their voices by eye movements and squeezing their hands when asked to do so.
The family argues that XY is not terminally ill and with appropriate care and treatment could survive for some years. It would also be technically possible for the hospital to perform a tracheostomy and a gastrostomy to sustain her life in the longer term and enable her discharge from ICU and even from Hospital.
However, clinicians at King’s College Hospital have refused to perform those surgeries on the grounds that they would be futile, or to refer the family to any other medical institutions which could offer that treatment.
The family has complained that the reporting restrictions imposed by the Court of Protection Prevent them from looking for an alternative hospital, to ask the public for donations to fund private treatment, or to expose the unfairness and cruelty of the system which is enforcing death of their mother against her wishes.
The hospital has said that there is no benefit to XY in maintaining her life “artificially” and it would be in her best interests for Clinically Assisted Nutrition and Hydration to be withdrawn.
Her family, however, do not accept this conclusion. They maintain that there is a chance of recovery and want to explore other options for treatment and care.
‘My mum is my best friend’
The daughter of XY, part of a London-based family with Jamaican roots, said:
“My mother is at the centre of a large family and a big part of her community and a pillar of her local church with lots of friends. She is a popular person who cares deeply about other people. Everyone who knows her says that she would have wanted to take every chance to continue to live and would not want to be put to death.
“Our wishes as a family and my mother’s right to life has been trampled on by the hospital and the courts.
“Like many families before us, the whole system has come against us and is forcing death on us rather than helping us pursue options for life.
“Instead of supporting the family at this difficult time, we have been taken to Courts to condemn my mother to death. We have found this system to be unbelievably cruel and unfair, with NHS and the courts working hand in glove to enforce death on the innocent.
“My mother will be starved to death soon after next Thursday, if there is no intervention.”
Andrea Williams, chief executive of the Christian Legal Centre, said: “This case shows how, in the assisted suicide debate we cannot leave it with the judges to protect life even if it is clear from the family’s evidence that the patient would want life to continue.
“The ruling from the court that the doctors’ opinion outweighs the family’s wishes and the right to life shows clearly that the system cannot be trusted to protect life or respect the views of patients and families who believe, often because of their Christian faith, that it is in their ‘best interests’ to live rather than die.
“This story provides the clear direction of travel for how vulnerable patients and families will be under any ‘assisted dying’ legislation. We stand with the family as they take their case to Europe and seek to have reporting restrictions lifted.”