Abstract

The recent legal dispute about medical treatment for a 19-year-old patient, Sudiksha Thirumalesh, (known initially by the Court of Protection as ‘ST’) in A NHS Trust versus ST & Ors (2023) raised several challenging ethical issues. While Sudiksha’s case bears similarities to other high-profile cases in England and Wales, there are key differences. Crucially, Sudiksha herself was part of the disagreement. She was alert, communicative and sought to advocate for herself. Furthermore, this case was framed in the courts as pivoting not on considerations of best interests but on a determination of decisional capacity. Sudiksha was deemed to lack capacity because she did not believe her doctors’ view of her prognosis.While the legal questions in the case were central to a recent Court of Appeal decision (which overturned the original finding), in this commentary, we focus on the ethical questions therein. We start by describing Sudiksha’s court case and the initial judgment. We then offer an ethical analysis of the relationship between false beliefs, values and the ‘capacity’ to make decisions, arguing for a need for particular care when judging patients to lack capacity based purely on ‘false and fixed beliefs’. After briefly noting the legal basis for the appeal finding, we offer ethical implications for future cases. Although it appears that Sudiksha had decision-making capacity, this did not settle the ethical question of whether health professionals were obliged to continue treatment that they believed to have no prospect of success.