A socialite who died after refusing medical treatment because she didn’t want to be old and ugly became used to a life of luxury while working as a high-end nanny, it has emerged.
The 50-year-old was at the centre of a Court of Protection case after she refused treatment for her severely-damaged kidneys because she did not want to ‘live in a council flat, be poor or be ugly’.
It has now emerged that the mother-of-three, whose death was announced yesterday, was married four times and was ‘hopeless’ with money after tasting the high life while working with wealthy families.
She was said to have been a reckless spender and excessive drinker who led a life ‘characterised by impulsive and self-centred decision-making without guilt or regret’.
Her first husband told the Daily Mail: ‘She was a good mum, she used to be a nanny before we got married. She had a lot of marriages and affairs, and she wasn’t very good with money. She enjoyed life.
‘Four actual marriages, they all ended in [disaster]… She did like blokes. I could understand her refusing treatment. Once she’s made up her mind and it’s something she’s going to do that’s it. She was a strong-willed person.’
He said she had been ‘hopeless’ with money after working as a high-end nanny. Before her death, she ran a boutique hotel in southern England and was a regular on the social scene.
One of the woman’s three daughters announced her death in an emotional social media message, saying she would ‘raise a glass of something fizzy’ to her mother.
She posted the tribute after her mother won a legal battle to stop the hospital treatment which was keeping her alive.
Her family were said to be devastated at her death, despite supporting her legal fight and telling the court her decision to die was in keeping with her ‘unusual personality’.
In an online tribute, her eldest daughter – a mother-of-one in her 20s – described her mother as ‘the life, soul and sparkle of any party’.
A friend said: ‘She [the daughter] said she wouldn’t go as far as to say she was going to see the angels, because she didn’t know that would be true, but she would miss her deeply.
‘She said her mum was the life, soul and sparkle of any party and to raise a glass of something fizzy to her.’
The Daily Mail told yesterday how the Court of Protection had allowed the woman to stop her hospital treatment for kidney failure against the wishes of doctors.
The vivacious mother of three told doctors she would rather die than lose her love of the ‘high life’, and said she could not face a future of ill health and poverty.
Her family told the court they did not want her to die but had to respect her decision.
The woman’s outwardly glamorous lifestyle had begun to unravel in late 2014 when she was diagnosed with breast cancer.
She underwent some treatment but refused chemotherapy in case it affected her appearance in a bikini, and refused to take medication which she claimed made her fat.
In August this year her latest relationship broke down and she said it resulted in the loss of her business and her home, and left her in debt.
Following a failed suicide attempt she suffered acute kidney failure and liver damage. At King’s College Hospital in London, doctors said there was a strong chance she would recover if she accepted dialysis.
But she was adamant she would rather die, telling doctors: ‘I’ve lost everything I’d worked for.’ Her middle daughter told the High Court her mother did not want to ‘live in a council flat, be poor or be ugly (which she equates with being old)’.
A court order banning the publication of the woman’s identity ended when she died. But her family sought for the order to be extended in an emergency hearing at the High Court last night.
Mr Justice MacDonald previously ruled that the woman’s identity should not be made public while she was alive – although he said the London-based King’s College Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which asked for the ruling, could be named.
Lawyers representing one of the woman’s daughters say she also wanted to remain anonymous in death.
Late on Wednesday another judge made an order saying the woman’s identity should remain secret until the issue could be fully debated at a further Court of Protection hearing, likely to take place in the next week in London.
