Right-to-die socialite cannot be named even after death

A SOCIALITE who died after refusing life-saving treatment because she felt she had lost her ‘sparkle’ cannot be named, a judge ruled yesterday.

An anonymity order granted during her lifetime was extended at her family’s request so the 50-year-old will not be named in any reports of her inquest.

The unusual measure was ordered by a Court of Protection judge after her relatives said they had been distressed by some media coverage of her legal battle for the right to stop treatment. There are no known recent precedents of an inquest involving a dead person who cannot be named.

The mother- of-three’s family said they were worried about the impact of further reporting on her youngest daughter, who is not yet 18 and was said in court to have a history of ‘fragile mental health’.

Mr Justice Charles said there was ‘compelling evidence’ the teenager might suffer ‘serious and possibly long-term harm and distress’ if her mother’s name was made public. The woman, named only as C, told doctors she would rather die than face a future of ill health and poverty after a suicide attempt left her with kidney failure.

Medics from King’s College Hospitals NHS Trust in south London said there was a strong chance she would make a full recovery if she accepted dialysis, but she remained adamant she would rather die.

Her family told the Court of Protection they wanted her to live but had to respect her decision. One of her adult daughters said her mother kept saying ‘she doesn’t want to live without her sparkle’.

She said her mother told her: ‘I am not going to be poor, be ugly and live in a council house.’

The daughter added: ‘She thinks the high- light of her day will be occasionally getting to go out to Nando’s…’ C had attempted suicide after the break-up of a relationship and told doctors: ‘I know I could get better. I know that I could live without a health problem but I don’t want it…I’ve had a good innings.’

C died last November after treatment was stopped and her case prompted widespread public debate about the right to refuse medical treatment. Mr Justice Charles said significant parts of the media coverage had focused on issues of public interest but much was intrusive and ‘prurient’.

Media groups including the publisher of the Daily Mail had opposed the family’s request to extend C’s anonymity beyond her death but dropped that opposition after hearing the family’s concerns.

Mr Justice Charles said reporting restriction orders could extend beyond the death of the person involved, but added the administration of justice was usually best served by inquests being heard in open court and without such restrictions.