Current Events

British Courts Dehumanise then Deliver Death Sentences

EUROPE RENAISSANCE NEEDS YOUR SUPPORT: Easier and cheaper than PayPal bank transfer donations are essential to keep us publishing. Contact for details. You can also help by shopping at our online bookstore and encouraging others to do so.

Early in the afternoon of 26 January 2021, the middle-aged Polish citizen referred to in court documents simply as RS, passed away after being deprived of fluids and food by University Hospital Plymouth NHS Trust after their petitioning for a court order to do so.

The man, who has not been named, had been in a Plymouth hospital since November 6 after suffering a cardiac arrest. Private Archive

His cause of death may be recorded as having occurred as a result of prolonged dehydration; however, that is merely the cause of death. The actual cause of death was the stroke of a judge’s pen decreeing that this man’s life had no further value and that it would be in his best interests to die.

So powerful are our courts that they cannot only take a life, but they can remove our right to be human beings. By publicly taking away his name and bestowing on him randomly selected initials, they took away his status as a human being and the court removed the possibility of public emotional attachment.

By threat of criminal sanction, they forbade his family from telling the world of what had been done to the recently killed patient. RS was not just a set of initials. He was a loving, loyal and supportive father, a husband, a brother and uncle, a son, a proud Polish man and a devoted Catholic.

Those who fought for him spent the last weeks often working throughout the nights, holidays and weekends to try and save his life. That alone proves just how wrong the courts were to imply that his life no longer had meaning.

In early November, the patient dubbed and dismissed as ‘RS’ by a court of state law suffered a heart attack. In the absence of blood flow, he sustained brain damage. Within days of being admitted, doctors at University Hospital Plymouth NHS Trust concluded that it was in his best interests that life-sustaining care, including fluids and nutrition, be withdrawn.

At the end of November, an application was made to the Court of Protection to resolve the dispute between RS’s mother and other members of his family, both in Poland and in the UK, who insisted that he be kept alive.

Following an online court hearing earlier in mid-December, Mr Justice Cohen agreed with the hospital’s motion and issued an order to withdraw treatment and care with the inevitable result being the premature death of ‘patient ‘RS’. This decision was made despite the finding that he could live for up to five to ten years more, that he was still in the early stages of recovery and that there was still room for improvement. The ruling was made despite the fact that in a minimally conscious state there was a chance that he could acknowledge the presence of other human beings.

There are many fundamental problems underlying such cases. First and foremost, they are hurried. Those wishing to preserve life are given an inappropriately short amount of time to prepare a defence. Second, there is also an utter lack of equality with the hospital having limitless resources to use the best lawyers while the grieving families have to hire their own lawyers, often at a huge expense.

Third, in almost all of these contested cases, the Court of Protection overwhelmingly finds in favour of the petitioning hospital. The Official Solicitor, meant to protect the interests of the patient in question instead seeks withdrawal of treatment rather than continued care.

It is within these circumstances that RS’s mother and other family members found themselves, making it almost impossible during the crucial fact-finding stage of proceedings to contest medical evidence.

Therein lays the next and essentially insurmountable hurdle facing distressed and impotent families. Once those initial findings become part of the first judgment, they become almost impossible to overcome.

While it is true that parties are allowed to appeal an adverse judgment, the initial findings by a single judge are almost impenetrable. The higher appellate courts do not hear the cases afresh. They must accept the facts as they come to them unless they are clearly mistaken; focusing much more on the procedural aspects of the case instead of whether the judge came to the right conclusion or not.

By the time a family is able to find its own medical experts and begin to produce evidence which undermines those initial findings, as was the case here, it is too late. The threshold for impeaching earlier medical findings is simply insurmountable. The court’s insistence that the integrity of its procedure, no matter how rigid it is, and that their rulings be dealt with the utmost speed, despite legitimate reasons for delaying course, is found to be more important than the life at stake.

Semantics aside, this is euthanasia by order of the State. It really is quite remarkable words can accomplish. Giving someone an injection to hasten their death is deemed euthanasia, whereas removing life-sustaining nutrition and hydration, despite accomplishing the same goal but in a much more degrading, inhumane and prolonged way, is not. It is a simple matter of fact that food and hydration are life-sustaining for each of us, whether we are in a hospital bed or not.

How can we not call it state-ordered killing if in addition to allowing for the withdrawal of basic care, we prevent others from providing that care to the individual?

Some illustrations suffice to prove the point. If I have an infant in my care, unable because of their immaturity to feed and hydrate themselves, and I decide that, given what an awful world we live in and what a bleak future faces that child, that it would be better for that baby not to live, and I decide to stop feeding and hydrating them and prevent others from doing so, I would de facto be guilty of murder if that child died. The same would be true if I had in my care anyone with a disability who was incapable of feeding or hydrating themselves.

The only difference being between these two scenarios and a Court of Protection case is that in the latter, the person making the decision is wearing a robe and has the power of the state behind them.

Despite how these rulings are dressed up in medical terminology, there is no science involved in these deliberations. The judge is working from a wholly subjective philosophical understanding of whether they believe a particular individual’s life is worth living or not.

That decision is almost always based on calculating whether a person can derive pleasure or not, rather than any inherent value life has on its own. A judge has a no better understanding of the meaning of life or its worth than any person we may find in any walk of life. And if the integrity of the entire judicial system demands that we kill to protect legal procedure rather than exhibit caution and compassion, I am not sure it is much of system at all.

Like with so many things in life, what is seen on the surface rarely reflects the reality of a given situation. The Christian Legal Centre, for taking part in cases like this one or the Alfie Evans case, has received a tremendous amount of hate and venom spat in its direction.

It’s easy for those critics to make snap judgments because they really have no idea what is involved in cases of this nature. They are not there working throughout the night for days at a time, being at the side of these family members, and seeing how insurmountable the system is.

They cannot see from behind their computer screens, how the scales of justice are weighted so heavily against these families or how draconian reporting restrictions frustrate their ability to share their story with the world. Nor do they know all that goes on behind the scenes, the consultations with other medical experts and lawyers, or the facilitating of diplomatic involvement.

Cases like this require exhaustive appeals processes, expert legal knowledge and a dogged work ethic. They require blood, sweat and often a lot of tears. They require huge amounts of coordination as well. The will and the energy for all of this comes from our closeness to these families which are fighting a cold and bureaucratic system to save their loved one from certain death. These are families who know that the very people who are charged with caring for their loved one are the same ones fighting tooth and nail in court to end that person’s life.

An aspect that makes this case unique is that RS was not a UK citizen. He was Polish and according to his family, he wished to return to Poland one day. The Polish government did all that they could to protect their own citizen.

Before taking more formal action, the Polish government, vis-à-vis its Embassy, participated in the later stages of the appeals process seeking to keep him alive and to have their citizen returned to Poland at their own expense. They also sought to be joined the family’s appeal to the European Court of Human Rights as a third party.

Then, on 20 January 2020, a Polish Court, by the motion of the Prosecutor’s office, declared RS as a permanent resident of Poland and therefore within its jurisdiction. The District Court in Warsaw secured the right of RS to be returned to Poland.

Around the same time, RS was granted diplomatic status by the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which further boosted their right to remove him to Poland because of the diplomatic immunity that was conferred upon him as a result of his diplomatic appointment.

Literally, on the day RS passed away, the Polish Ministries of Justice and Health were to have a meeting with their UK counterparts to have the order withdrawing nutrition and hydration lifted while the Polish government sought to have its court order for repatriating RS effectuated. That meeting never took place at the time set and the UK authorities never got back to the Polish ministers as to when it was to take place and why it did not take place before RS died just hours later.

Whatever the case, it remains a mystery why the order was not postponed given the UK’s (and the hospital’s) knowledge of the developments in Poland. After all, by failing to do so they knew full well that the result of their inaction would lead to death despite Poland having a legitimate legal and diplomatic basis from bringing him home, and a Constitutional obligation to do so.

This in and of itself, that the UK would act in such an intentional manner in relation to a citizen of another nation against the express wishes of that nation, in a situation that would end in death, is an international scandal. It is an act I hope the Polish government does not leave unchallenged.

Critics will point to the fact that RS’s wife supported the hospital’s decision to withdraw treatment as decisive on the matter and grounds for criticising outside involvement. However, this is far from an accurate portrayal of events. An in-depth analysis of this question was published by Christian Concern earlier this month and is certainly worth reading.

To be brief, there are more questions than answers when it comes to this issue.  First of all, RS’s wife never gave oral evidence in court and was not subjected to cross-examination. Moreover, we know that at an early stage, she called RS’s mother and expressed her disagreement with the hospital and remarked that she was told that she did not have a say in the matter. She also told the Official Solicitor that she would be the last person to remove her husband from life-sustaining care if there was any possibility of recovery. She was subsequently told, falsely, that her husband had no brain activity.

We have no way of knowing what her view would have been had she been presented with the medical prognosis in a less one-sided fatalistic way. If she had been told, for example, that there was the possibility that he would be able to recognise her presence and react by squeezing her hand, would her reaction have been different? Precisely stated, the question of the wife’s freely expressed views over her husband’s ongoing care is far from being clearly answered.

Whatever a single judge writes in a judgment, or whether there is an appellate system geared towards protecting the integrity of that decision, no human being should have the say on whether a life is worth living or not. It is far too subjective of an assessment and open to abuse and personal bias.

RS’s life had meaning and it had worth. His family, the Polish government, the Polish media, and the Polish people, along with many others championed his ongoing life. His life and his saga inspired hope. His treatment by the UK authorities also inspired anger and frustration with a system that has so little regard for human dignity and the value of life.

What is clear is that the removing basic humanitarian care, the kind that is even guaranteed to prisoners of war by the Geneva Convention, and then preventing others from providing that care is murder.

No matter how skilful someone is with words, what happened to RS can be dressed up as nothing less. So wilful were these efforts that they obstructed every good intention of the Polish government to bring their own citizen home for care. If this case does not strike at the very heart of why we need a change in this country over life and death questions, then I am afraid we’ve run too far to find our way back home. NOTE: The Christian Legal Centre’s Roger Kiska comments on the case of RS, the Polish citizen dehydrated to death by court order. Source 1, Source 2

Donate: It is the generosity of our supporters and members that makes our vital work possible. As the storm clouds of crisis and the pain of injustice and persecution loom over our people, the potential and importance of our work grows day-by-day. There is no George Soros figure out there for nationalists, so we can only do what good people like you help us to do. Thank you for your faith and your generous commitment: contact Michael Walsh

Think your friends would be interested? Share or reblog this story!



The revenge of a predator is a city-vigilante epic better than Death Wish A LEOPARD IN LIVERPOOL , 55 lavishly illustrated first-hand stories by a Liverpool sailor THE LEAVING OF LIVERPOOL, Latest Killer-Thriller From Michael Walsh the City Vigilante Supremo The Stigma Enigma , A powerful thought-provoking paranormal romance The Soul Meets, How to form a naughty ménage a trois THE DOVETAILS and SEX FEST AT TIFFANY’S.

THE AMOROUS GHOST AND ENCOUNTERS Michael Walsh. A novel but not a work of fiction. Drawing on his real-life and location experiences this romantic-supernatural biography will ravish the reader. A page-turning terrifying white knuckle ride because these are his real-life apparitional experiences. AMAZON/KINDLE

Latest Michael Walsh bestsellers: Those who fall victim to the taxman, banks and moneylenders are victims of legalised mugging  DEBTOR’S REVENGE, The Business Booster shows you how to double your profits not your workload THE BUSINESS BOOSTER 

MICHAEL WALSH is a journalist, author, and broadcaster. His 70 books include best-selling RHODESIA’S DEATH EUROPE’S FUNERAL, AFRICA’S KILLING FIELDS,  THE LAST GLADIATORS, A Leopard in Liverpool, RISE OF THE SUN WHEELEUROPE ARISE, FOR THOSE WHO CANNOT SPEAK, THE ALL LIES INVASIONINSPIRE A NATION Volume IINSPIRE A NATION Volume II, and many other book titles. These illustrated best-selling books are essential for the libraries of informed readers.

The author’s books available for purchase by visiting his website BOOKSTORE, and POETRY  links.

We are in debt to our donors who finance the distribution of spin-free real news and fearlessly expressed views.


MEGACAUST Michael Walsh. R. J. Rummel,   Power Kills: Genocide and Mass Murder (Journal of Peace Research) 164 million people have been killed in cold blood this century by Capitalist / Communist governments. 

SLAUGHTER OF A DYNASTY  Michael Walsh. Covertly sponsored by Wall Street banks and the White House Bolsheviks seized Tsarist Russia (regime change). For 36 years news of Bolshevik atrocities and 70 million martyred Christians were censored by Western media.  Lavishly illustrated, this expose reveals secrets removed from Western history books.

When ordering the book contact Michael Walsh by email to receive your signed copy.

KEEP REAL NEWS OPEN: Donate by using Western Union, MoneyGram, Ria, registered mail or contact Michael Walsh: or 2) Follow our blog. 3) Share our stories and 4) buy our author-signed books. 5) Receive free newsletters by writing subscribe to

BOOKS THAT CHALLENGE, INSPIRE, INFORM Michael Walsh, ‘Writer of the Year’ with a strong global following. Nearly 70 interesting Amazon book titles famed for changing and improving lives. CLICK TO VIEW

New stories every day!


2 replies »

  1. So he died from a stroke (of a pen). It was a slow execution by UK State, in breach of its own and EU Laws. The Eugenicists in UK, who kill all elderly and vulnerable Patients, ignore any informed consent and fabricate DNR forms, often with zero consultation with Patient’s or their families. The killing of individuals by dehydration and/or starvation is murder and the people who conspired to kill RS must be brought to justice, immediately.

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s