Court backs young woman’s right to ‘die trying to live’

A young woman was not ‘deluded’ to contest a decision by medics to withdraw her life-supporting treatment, the Court of Appeal has ruled.

Upholding a posthumous appeal against a Court of Protection ruling, senior judges defended 19-year-old Sudiksha Thirumalesh’s legal right to make decisions about her healthcare.

In August 2023, the Court of Protection agreed with University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust, which argued that Sudiksha was “delusional” for resisting her doctors’ decision to move her to the palliative care pathway.

Mental capacity

Sudiksha suffered from encephalomyopathic mitochondrial DNA depletion syndrome, a rare life-threatening genetic condition that caused hearing loss, muscle weakness, and kidney damage.

She was admitted to the Intensive Care Unit of the Trust’s Queen Elizabeth Hospital, with respiratory problems on 1 August 2022, but when she disagreed with medics that her condition was ‘incurable’ and objected to the removal of life-sustaining care, the Trust took the case to the Court of Protection.

Her express wish to “die trying to live” was branded “delusional” by the Trust’s lawyers. The Court agreed, declaring that her opposition to the doctors’ opinion showed that she lacked mental capacity to make decisions about her own care.

Overturned

Sudiksha died on 12 September 2023, shortly before the Court of Protection released its judgment, but last week the Court of Appeal overturned the previous court’s decision.

Outlining the details of the case, Lady Justice King explained: “The decisions in this case related to Sudiksha, who, notwithstanding her terrible illness, was studying for A levels before contracting Covid which led to her long-term admission to ICU.

“She was a 19-year-old young woman who was fully conscious, was not suffering from any mental illness or brain damage and was communicating freely with both her family and the medical team caring for her.”

Remarkable woman

The judge added: “She was clear at all times in expressing her wishes, namely that she wanted to be provided with all active care possible, to try experimental treatment and to ‘die trying to live’.”

Granting the Appeal, she stated: “It follows that in my judgment, this remarkable young woman had capacity to make decisions in relation to her medical treatment and therefore had her wish to ‘die trying to live’.”

Sudiksha’s parents, supported by the Christian Legal Centre, said: “We are grateful to the Court of Appeal for an opportunity to challenge the frightening and unfair judgment made against Sudiksha even after her death, and for setting the law straight.”