The case of ST shows how legalised euthanasia could result in mass murder

Almost daily now, events occur that are so incredible, nightmarish and tyrannical as to beggar belief that something so terrible can really be happening in a country where, until very recently, the power of the state was restricted within well-established parameters, liberty of the citizen was the default position and innocent human life was protected.

No more. The decline in our freedom is now precipitous, to the point where our very lives are endangered by the ruthless entitlement of the intruder state. The latest example is so extreme as to provoke incredulity, but unfortunately it is all too real.

The case of the 19-year-old woman anonymised as “ST”, by order of the British legal system, represents the most appalling assault yet by the elite establishment on the freedom and very existence of a citizen. The state is trying, with all the excessive powers at its disposal, to depersonalise, discredit and kill “ST”. It is as brutal as that.

“ST” is a 19-year-old girl suffering from the very rare degenerative illness known as mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome (MDS). It manifested itself when she was four, but she led a full and active life for many years, playing sports, hiking and camping. Those who know her testify to her bright personality and she gained good GCSE grades. Eventually, however, problems developed with her kidneys, so that she had to receive regular outpatient dialysis.

Last August, “ST” contracted Covid, which caused a deterioration in her health and she has been hospitalised since. She is attached to a ventilator, has been given a tracheotomy and is fed through a tube. Yet she remains mentally active, can communicate by means of a Smartbox to help her speak and messages her friends on Instagram, as well as enjoying playing board games on her Smartbox..

As early as September 2022, her doctors claimed she had only days to live and pressed for a change to “palliative” care – a euphemism for withdrawing the life support she needs to survive. They have repeated that diagnosis several times since, along with the claim that she is “actively dying”. Last April, the hospital went to court, seeking permission to withdraw her life-support and to get a gagging order to prevent her or her family telling the public about her case or naming the hospital involved.

That is one of the most sinister aspects of this case: we do not know who the victim is, or even in what part of the country this is taking place. The infant Charlie Gard had the same illness as “ST”, but he retained his identity, his parents could present their side of the case to the public and ask for support. The NHS, supported by the courts, is determined to avoid that kind of scrutiny ever again and the legal system has obliged them.

In a society obsessed with identity, “ST” has been robbed of hers, denied the dignity of communicating as a known individual with the public, while her family is under similar constraint. They and their daughter want to seek new treatment, in the form of nucleotide therapy, available at three hospitals in Canada and the United States, which might extend the patient’s life by several years. But the cost of a transatlantic flight by air ambulance, plus the treatment, has been estimated at as high as £1.5m.

The family, which has already spent £25,000 of life savings in legal fees to prevent the NHS killing “ST”, cannot afford such a sum, but they hope it might be possible to raise it by appealing to the compassion of the public through crowdfunding. But the hospital, by forcing both “ST” and her family to remain anonymous and make no public reference to the case, is preventing that option. Even if some legal loophole were found, how much money would be raised by some kind of ad hoc trust, on behalf of an anonymous person?

It is impossible to avoid the impression that that was the cynical calculation of the hospital authorities in securing the Draconian gagging order. Why was it granted? It is less than a month since the Lucy Letby case provoked a public consensus that the anonymous pen-pushers running NHS trusts must be made accountable. Yet, in direct contradiction of that consensus, an NHS trust and hospital have been granted total anonymity, in a case where they are trying to take a patient’s life.

In an extravagant demonstration of establishment euphemism, the legal directive that reduced “ST” and her family to the anonymous status of non-persons was termed a Transparency Order. By the same token, the court that has facilitated the ending of her life, against her will, is called the Court of Protection. That is straight out of the Ministry of Truth play book: war is peace, good is bad, concealment is transparency.

At the court hearing, two expert psychiatrists, not called by lawyers representing “ST”, both testified that she has no kind of psychiatric disorder and is perfectly capable of making a decision about her future. One of them described her as “comfortable, smiling, alert and in clear consciousness”.

Yet the judge, Mrs Justice Roberts, ruled precisely on the grounds of mental capacity against “ST”, stating that because “she does not believe what her doctors are telling her about the trajectory of her disease and her likely life expectancy” she could not choose between treatment options “on an informed basis”.

Considering her doctors told “ST” a year ago that she would be dead within days and have repeated that prognosis several times since, it is hardly irrational of the girl to be sceptical of their opinions. Some people might also think it slightly contradictory for a judge to declare “ST” incompetent because she rejects her clinicians’ opinions, immediately after herself rejecting the evidence of two senior psychiatric practitioners.

Bioethicist Professor David Albert Jones condemned the court’s finding: “In this case, a vulnerable patient’s disagreement with her doctors is being used against her as a means not only to take away her voice but further to deny her the right to litigate against the decision to take away her voice. Most disturbingly of all, her wish to continue to receive life-sustaining treatment, such as dialysis, is not only being ignored, but that very wish is being seen as a reason to deny her dignity as a mentally capable adult. This is a lethal form of paternalism.”

In effect, the situation resembles a seventeenth century witch trial by water: if the woman drowned, she was innocent; if she survived, she was dried off and burned as a witch. If “ST” meekly complied with her doctors’ demands and assented to withdrawal of life support, she would die; since she rejects that scenario, her will to live is interpreted as mental incapacity, giving doctors the right to kill her.

The reality is that “ST” is completely mentally capable and realistic about her medical condition. She acknowledges she will die if her life support is withdrawn; but she wants the option of trying nucleotide therapy in Canada. It might or might not work, but if it is to have any chance of succeeding, time is of the essence. But the NHS and the courts are obstructing that lifeline by making it impossible for “ST” and her family to raise the necessary funds.

Her personal observations are completely realistic, cogent and articulate. In an interview with the Daily Mail, she echoed Professor Jones’s terminology: “I have found myself trapped in a medical and legal system governed by a toxic paternalism which has condemned me for wanting to live,” she said. 

She added: “My doctors are saying because they cannot treat my MDS, I should not be having any more life-preserving treatment. Instead I should be filled up with opioids so I will lose consciousness and die. I do not want this and want to try the treatment being offered abroad. It might be a small chance, but it is my only chance.”

Does that sound like the ravings of someone who is “fundamentally illogical or irrational”, in the words of Mrs Justice Roberts? “ST” was already on record as saying she would prefer to die, trying to live – a supremely rational attitude.

This case has a significance beyond even the tragic circumstances of “ST”. The repeated attempts by campaigners to legalise euthanasia or “assisted suicide” in this country acquires an additionally nightmarish dimension when one considers it would be administered by this already lethal medico-legal establishment. It would create a dystopian society in which pressure would be put on people to end their lives, for utilitarian reasons, resulting in an environment in which death would be the default position.

We are already half-way there. The legal system already facilitates NHS trusts, hell-bent on ending someone’s life, to keep a grip on their prey until they succeed in their objective. In the case of Alfie Evans, the Pope sent an air ambulance to transport him to the Bambino Gesu hospital in Rome for specialist treatment, but the British courts prevented his leaving the country. Charlie Gard was similarly prohibited from going to America. In both cases the weasel excuse was that the journey might kill them – when a UK hospital was about to do so anyway.

This time, the establishment may have gone too far. “ST” has argued her case with an articulacy that was not possible in the case of those infants. Even the mainstream media have reacted sympathetically: there is a growing sense that this is an execution too far for the entitled elites. The realisation that, in this country, it is possible for a citizen, in full possession of her faculties and eager to live, to have her life snuffed out in deep secrecy, with her family muzzled and prevented from seeking help – stripped even of their identities – has provoked understandable concern.

After Charlie Gard, many people said “Never again.” But the untamed elites have come back for more – and more still, if they remain unchecked – until they secure a blank cheque in the form of legalised euthanasia. That must not happen. People are increasingly afraid to enter an NHS hospital – a woman with the same disease as “ST” admitted this week that, after an episode, she rejects her GP’s advice to go to hospital, for fear of coming out in a coffin.

By what right do NHS trusts hold patients captive and why do the courts endorse this totalitarian conduct? The parents of “ST” are appealing to the High Court; if that appeal fails, we shall be in dystopian territory. In medical terms, the clock is ticking with regard to alternative treatment for “ST”. There is no hypocritical euphemism that can disguise the underlying reality: as with previous victims, the British legal and medical establishment appears to be trying to kill “ST”. How did we decline into a country like this?

Write to us with your comments to be considered for publication at letters@reaction.life