In a case that has gripped both the medical and legal communities in the United Kingdom, the death of 23-year-old Cambridge graduate Paloma Shemirani has been ruled as more than minimally influenced by her mother’s conspiracy-driven opposition to conventional cancer treatment. The verdict, delivered by coroner Catherine Wood at Kent and Medway Coroners Court on October 2, 2025, has cast a spotlight on the devastating consequences that misinformation and family dynamics can have on medical decision-making.
Paloma Shemirani’s story is as tragic as it is complex. Diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma in December 2023, she was presented with a hopeful prognosis by her doctors at Maidstone Hospital. According to BBC, medical staff told her that chemotherapy offered an 80% chance of a complete cure. Initially, Paloma consented to the treatment, nodding in agreement during consultations. But doubts began to surface after her mother, Kate Shemirani—a former nurse struck off the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) register in 2021 for spreading COVID-19 misinformation—became involved in her care.
Kate Shemirani’s reputation as a prominent online conspiracy theorist preceded her. The NMC found that her public statements had “put the public at significant risk of harm.” This background proved critical during the inquest. As reported by The Independent, the coroner described Mrs. Shemirani’s conduct as “incomprehensible,” noting she took a leading role in advising Paloma to pursue alternative treatments, including a strict diet, daily coffee enemas (sometimes as many as five per day), and green juices. These interventions, the coroner concluded, were not only ineffective but also directly contributed to Paloma’s refusal of chemotherapy.
The family’s internal dynamics only deepened the tragedy. Paloma, who had been estranged from her mother prior to her diagnosis, was encouraged to return to the family home after learning of her illness. Once there, she was enveloped in an environment where both her mother and father, Faramarz Shemirani, were sympathetic to anti-conventional medicine views. According to The Guardian, messages from her father urged her to reject hospital care, warning, “Don’t consent to anything from the doctors, they try and kill you.” Mrs. Shemirani herself reportedly told Paloma, “I’m the only one that can help you, don’t bite the hand that feeds.”
The pressure on Paloma was not subtle. Her twin brother, Gabriel Shemirani, testified at the inquest, stating, “I blame my mother entirely for my sister’s death,” and accused her of “obstructing” Paloma from receiving life-saving treatment. He further contended that their mother “sacrificed Paloma’s life for her own principles,” and argued she should be held accountable.
Yet, Paloma’s own statements introduced a degree of ambiguity. In documents submitted to the High Court in spring 2024, she cited her “background in natural healing” as a reason for declining chemotherapy and described her mother as “an extremely forceful advocate for natural health” who was “misquoted” by those labeling her views as conspiratorial. Paloma also claimed her human rights had been violated by NHS practitioners and expressed satisfaction with her alternative treatment. She even denied having non-Hodgkin lymphoma, despite clear medical evidence to the contrary. However, the coroner found that while Paloma had mental capacity, she was “extremely vulnerable” in the months before her death—a vulnerability that increased after moving in with her mother.
The events leading to Paloma’s death unfolded rapidly. On July 19, 2024, she collapsed at home after telling her mother she was struggling to breathe. An osteopath who saw her that morning told the court he had “never seen” a lymphoid mass like hers in 43 years of practice. When paramedics arrived, Mrs. Shemirani was heard shouting “she’s dying” to the emergency operator and explaining, “it’s difficult to lie her on her front because she has a medicinal mass” in her throat. Paloma was transported to Royal Sussex County Hospital, where she died five days later from hyperoxic ischemic brain injury caused by cardiac arrest as a consequence of untreated lymphoma.
Throughout the inquest, Mrs. Shemirani maintained that her daughter made her own choices, stating, “Paloma made her own treatment choices based on her values, research and experiences.” She denied coercion, insisting that Paloma “continued to improve physically” under alternative therapies and was “determined to get well on her own terms.” She further alleged that medical staff were responsible for her daughter’s death, accusing them of gross negligence manslaughter. The coroner, however, dismissed these claims as “utterly groundless assertions,” affirming that staff at Maidstone Hospital, Royal Sussex County Hospital, and the paramedics all acted appropriately.
The court also examined the broader context of family dysfunction. The coroner described the Shemirani family’s behavior in court as “reprehensible,” with “striking” dysfunction on public display. Neither parent attended the conclusion of the inquest, providing no valid reason for their absence. Meanwhile, Gabriel and his brother Sebastian attended and publicly criticized the state for not classifying Paloma’s death as an unlawful killing, despite the recognized breach in their mother’s duty of care.
One of the most sobering moments came when the coroner reflected on what might have been. “It seems that if Paloma had been supported and encouraged to accept her diagnosis and considered chemotherapy with an open mind she probably would have followed that course,” Ms. Wood stated. “If approached with an open mind, Paloma would have chosen the chance to survive, and if she had undergone chemotherapy she probably would have survived.”
The case has raised difficult questions about personal autonomy, the influence of family, and the dangers of medical misinformation. While Paloma’s right to refuse treatment was never in question, the inquest made clear that her decision was shaped by a potent mix of vulnerability, parental pressure, and exposure to conspiracy theories. Medical professionals, meanwhile, were left grappling with the limits of their ability to intervene when patients are “adversely influenced” by those closest to them.
As the dust settles on the inquest, the Shemirani case stands as a stark warning about the real-world consequences of misinformation and the profound responsibility that comes with influencing the vulnerable. For now, the medical community—and the public at large—are left to reflect on what, if anything, could have been done differently to save a young woman whose life was caught between science and belief.
