Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

By Tim Tapp

ST was suffering from a rare genetic mitochondrial disease that is progressively degenerative, much like the disorder that took the life of Charlie Gard. She had spent a year in an ICU, dependent on a ventilator and a feeding tube, and required regular dialysis. Clearly, her body was succumbing to the disorder. However, her mind was still strong. Two psychiatrists that the hospital assigned to assess ST ruled that she was free from mental health issues and had the mental capacity to decide for herself. That assessment did not hold sway with the National Health Service Trust doctors, who said that ST was “actively dying” and there was nothing left to do but transition to end-of-life care.

This matters because ST – attested by her family – was a committed Christian. And as such, she firmly believed that life is the most precious gift we have from God. ST believed that she should be free to pursue experimental options regardless of the odds because she chose to cling to hope. Hope that she had because of her faith. Hope that she had because she believed both in miracles and that “God’s Will” would be done regardless of the outcome. But that wasn’t good enough for the National Health Service Trust doctors.

ST had hoped to travel to Canada and participate in medical trials for nucleotide therapy to help her survive. The NHS went to court to prevent ST from seeking care outside of their purview and to prevent her – or her family – from making many of the details of the case public, which is why we only know her as ST. The NHS claimed that ST was not capable of making this decision for herself based on the fact that she would not accept the “facts” that they had decreed. “She was dying! Nothing to be done. Shut up and die quietly because we say so.”

On August 25th, 2023, Justice Jennifer Roberts of the High Court of England and Wales ruled that ST “lacked the capacity” to instruct her lawyers and said that the Protective Court should decide on her best interests. Roberts believes that ST was unable to make a decision for herself about her medical treatment, including the proposed move to palliative care, because she “does not believe the information she has been given by her doctors.” Roberts sided with the NHS’s authority over ST despite the determinations of not one but two psychiatrists who certified that ST was not suffering from mental health issues at the time and had the mental capacity to make choices for herself.

So, why would the Justice find on behalf of the NHS? It would appear that it must be one of two possibilities, if not a combination of both. Possibility one: in the court’s view, no one has the right to challenge the power of the NHS over the “care” they choose to ration to you. Possibility two: the court sees the Christian faith as a mental health issue, thereby rendering ST mentally incompetent despite the determinations of the two psychiatrists who evaluated ST. Regardless, the natural human rights recognized by Western civilization for centuries are no longer acknowledged in the United Kingdom.

Socialized medicine has always been packaged for the masses as if it should be a “human right.” The problem with this utopian viewpoint is that it ignores several real-world facts. Looking past the limits on resources that may be available, the slowing of innovation in the field, and the best-case scenario of a modern indentured servitude for those working to provide health care for the moment, all decisions about the care that will be made available to you, will be made through the prism of budgetary and political concerns, not based on your well-being. And, like it or not, most people actively advocating for a single-payer system know full well the shortcomings of such a system. (That’s why so many elected officials exempted themselves when they passed ObamaCare.) Those who support the move toward socialized medicine understand that it is a powerful tool for controlling the masses.

The parents of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans were denied their parental rights in the name of the authority of the NHS. ST was denied her right to believe in a higher power that can create miracles but, more importantly, offers hope beyond what any government entity can. And this was all done in the name of control. The political left must destroy the family and isolate people of faith. People of faith and people who believe in strong family bonds will never entrust their well-being or future to the State.

Globalists, collectivists, socialists, or communists all require one hundred percent loyalty to the State. There can be no higher authority than the government. There can be no bond that might challenge or conflict with the will of the “community.” To allow room for anyone to think, even for just a moment, that there may be things more important than their policies, that there may be authorities higher than theirs over you, is to invite overthrow. Compliance is required and must be ensured. If that means that children must die, then so be it. We are dealing with a political ideology that has as a primary tenant that “the ends justify the means.”

ST was most likely going to die an early death. (She had already outlived the projections of the NHS doctors treating her, so there is no certainty what a new treatment would have meant for her. And, while no person should be treated as a lab rat, the data collected from a willing trial participant could mean life or death for the next patient with this disorder.) But, ST’s right to battle for her life was taken from her by state-assigned “experts.” Justice Jennifer Roberts of the High Court of England and Wales used ST’s Christian faith as an excuse to claim a mental defect where none existed. (Never forget, this is the true face of socialism.)

I hope that ST’s family wins their continuing court battle so that more details of this travesty can be made public and the “powers that be” can not hide their motivations. I also hope they win because someday, I hope to say the name of this young woman who bravely faced this debilitating disorder while fighting the State for fundamental rights for herself (and others) and never turning away from her faith. She deserves to be known.

Tim Tapp is the host of the syndicated, conservative talk show “Tapp” into the Truth. He calls East Tennessee home, where he broadcasts and writes. He also still works in Quality Assurance for a food manufacturing company as he takes up the cause of defending our republic. Find out more at


Guest Column


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.


Need help, have a question, or a comment? Send us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as possible.


Log in with your credentials

Forgot your details?