Life or death decisions are personal, no matter who the person is

If a 50-year-old woman doesn’t feel that her life is worth living without youth, beauty and money then that is up to her

British woman has chosen to refuse life-saving medical treatment, which will see her die within a matter of days (Getty)

Die young, stay pretty. Those were the memorable words of Debbie Harry in Blondie’s hit song of the same name. While I’m all for the staying pretty part, most of us would probably draw the line at dying young as a price worth paying for wrinkle-free beauty. There’s much to be said for not growing old and haggard – and an awful lot of people spend an awful lot of time and money battling against both – but, when it comes to choosing between the ageing process and dying, most of us opt for the former, not the latter.

But not all of us, it seems. A 50-year-old British woman has chosen to refuse life-saving medical treatment, which will see her die within a matter of days, rather than face a far longer life but risk becoming, in her own words, “old, poor and ugly”. What’s more, a judge has ruled that the woman is of sound mind and perfectly entitled to make that decision.

Identified in court only as C, the woman is not mentally ill; some might conclude instead that she is a shallow, narcissistic, vain, self-centred woman who has different priorities in life than most of us. She is described by Mr Justice MacDonald as a “completely indifferent mother” to her three daughters (one of whom is still only in her teens) and lives an alcohol-fuelled, hedonistic existence focused on men, money, material possessions and “living the high life”.

After four marriages, numerous affairs and reckless spending, she is now broke, suffering from breast cancer and faces living out the rest of her years as a poor, sick, old woman. She refused chemotherapy for her breast cancer for fear it would affect her appearance in a bikini, then she took a drug overdose and now she has declined to have the dialysis needed to repair the damage the overdose caused to her kidneys.

For C, losing her youth, good looks and “sparkle” is tantamount to a long, slow and painful death sentence. And that is precisely why she has chosen the alternative: a quick and painless death now. It is, importantly, her choice.

Mr Justice MacDonald told the court, as “unreasonable, illogical or even immoral” C’s decision may appear to you or me, it is not our decision to make. It is hers; and, it is hers alone. As distasteful and morally wrong as it may feel, the judge is absolutely right.

It is easy to nod sympathetically and understand why someone with a terminal illness, facing months of agony, would prefer to end their life now, or why someone would choose not to continue their life as a paraplegic, unable to communicate or live an independent life. Some people can live a fulfilling life from a hospital bed or a wheelchair; some cannot. We won’t always agree with every decision.

So C’s case is a crucial test of just how much control we truly believe an individual should have over his or her own life – even when we don’t approve of their decision. Whether we like it or not, the only person who can decide if C’s life is worthwhile is C herself. We shouldn’t insist that she must stay alive simply because we think her life has value.

If she doesn’t feel that her life is worth living without youth, beauty and money – even for the sake of her children and grandchild – then that is up to her. It doesn’t make her particularly likable, but then she isn’t asking people to like her. She is simply asking for the right to decide her own life, and her own death.