Secret inquest for socialite who feared losing ‘sparkle’

A MOTHER who was allowed to die because she feared getting old and losing her looks is to become one of the first civilians to have an anonymous inquest after a court ruled that identifying her would go against her family’s human rights.

A judge ordered that an anonymity order made by the Court of Protection should remain in place after her death and apply to her inquest.

It is understood such measures have only previously been used in a handful of inquests, including those into the deaths of special forces soldiers.

The case late last year triggered intense debate about the extent of the right to die in Britain after it emerged that the 50-year-old socialite had refused potentially life-saving treatment because she no longer wanted to live, feeling she had lost her “sparkle” and feared becoming “poor or ugly”. Doc- tors had believed her life could be saved by dialysis, after an earlier suicide attempt, and her three daughters had wanted her to have the treatment.

But the court ruled she had the mental capacity to decide for herself. She died on Nov 28, days after the judgment, in a hospice with family at her bedside. The case drew widespread media attention, focusing on details of her lifestyle, vividly outlined in court.

Now Mr Justice Charles, sitting as both a High Court and Court of Protection judge, has ruled that she should remain anonymous even after her death because of the potential effect of publicity on her daughters, one of whom is under 18. He made it clear that an order banning publication of her identity should also apply to any future inquest into her death.

Elaine Roche, a lawyer with JMW Solicitors, who regularly deals with Court of Protection cases, said: “I’ve never seen or heard of an order extending privacy beyond someone’s death. This is clearly more about protecting the family rather than the woman herself.”

The judge ruled there was “compelling evidence” that allowing the woman, and by extension her family, to be identified could cause unnecessary harm to them due to media interest.

‘This [ruling] is clearly more about protecting the family rather than the woman herself’