Paloma Shemirani, a promising graduate of the University of Cambridge, tragically passed away at the age of 23 after refusing chemotherapy treatment for non-Hodgkin lymphoma. Her story has sparked a powerful debate around medical autonomy, vaccine skepticism, and the controversial promotion of alternative health practices.
As the details of her final months emerged during a public inquest, the complexity of her decision-making process and the influence of her upbringing became clear. Her death is not only a personal tragedy but also a case that raises questions about how society balances medical advice, personal choice, and public health responsibility.
The Influence of Family and Natural Healing Beliefs
From a young age, Paloma Shemirani was immersed in a world of natural health practices, largely influenced by her mother, Kay “Kate” Shemirani. A former nurse and self-proclaimed nutritionist, Paloma Shemirani was struck off the nursing register in 2021 for spreading COVID-19 misinformation. Her prominence on social media and vocal support of alternative medicine positioned her as a controversial figure during the pandemic, and these beliefs appear to have had a lasting impact on Paloma.
At the inquest held at Oakwood House in Maidstone, Kent, statements written by Paloma were read aloud, revealing a deep commitment to natural healing. She claimed to live a strictly organic lifestyle, avoided tap water, refrained from drugs and alcohol, and sought medical advice primarily from her mother.
Paloma was described by herself as being “practically fanatical” about her health and a firm believer in holistic practices, including Gerson therapy—an alternative regimen that involves a strict vegetarian diet and frequent enemas. Despite a lack of scientific evidence supporting its effectiveness against cancer, Paloma was convinced of its healing potential, having even spent time at a Gerson camp in Mexico during her teenage years.
In her own words, Paloma rejected the label of being “vulnerable,” asserting her independence and health consciousness. She believed the NHS was violating her human rights by pushing chemotherapy on her, and in statements to the High Court, she expressed frustration and fear at what she saw as coercion by medical practitioners. Her views extended to vaccine skepticism, as she openly declared herself “anti-vax” and aligned with a perspective that saw conventional medicine as oppressive or even dangerous.
The Legal and Ethical Battle Over Medical Care
Paloma’s case was not just a personal decision—it entered the realm of legal and ethical scrutiny. As her health declined, questions arose regarding her capacity to make informed decisions, and the Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells NHS Trust became involved in proceedings related to the appropriateness of her care.
In the spring of 2024, statements submitted to the High Court indicated that Paloma believed her diagnosis of non-Hodgkin lymphoma was not definitive. She claimed there was no confirmed evidence of cancer and viewed the offer of chemotherapy as a violation of her bodily autonomy and reproductive rights.
Paloma Shemirani had an 80% chance of surviving cancer with chemotherapy. But influenced by her mother’s anti-science beliefs, she refused treatment—and lost her life.
— BMT Next (@officialbmt09) June 25, 2025
Her brother now speaks out against deadly medical misinformation.#Cancer #PalomaShemirani pic.twitter.com/V66lZIjxSi
The inquest revealed that she believed the R-CHOP chemotherapy treatment—commonly used for non-Hodgkin lymphoma—posed a significant risk to her life and fertility. According to her statements, she understood the survival rate to be as low as 20 percent, which only increased her determination to pursue alternative options. These fears, while perhaps exaggerated or misinformed, were clearly rooted in deeply held personal convictions and influenced by the medical skepticism promoted within her home environment.
Paloma accused the NHS of violating her human rights under multiple articles of the European Convention on Human Rights, including Article 3 (prohibition of inhuman treatment), Article 6 (right to a fair trial), and Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life). She also likened her treatment to the horrific abuses of Nazi doctor Josef Mengele, a comparison that underscores the emotional intensity and ideological lens through which she viewed her medical experience.
While the NHS maintained that appropriate care was offered and a proper diagnosis was pursued, the inquest demonstrated the challenge faced by medical professionals when a patient—especially a young adult—rejects life-saving treatment on ideological grounds. Paloma’s refusal was informed, documented, and supported by her family, which made any legal intervention more complicated and controversial.
Courtroom Drama and the Role of Kate Shemirani
The inquest was further marked by tense courtroom exchanges, primarily driven by the presence and conduct of Paloma’s mother, Kate Shemirani. Appearing via video link, Ms Shemirani was emotionally charged throughout the proceedings, at times holding up photos of her daughter and weeping as her daughter’s statements were read. Her behavior prompted multiple reprimands from the coroner, Catherine Wood, who had to pause the proceedings to cool tensions when Paloma Shemirani became combative.
Paloma Shemirani took it upon herself to cross-examine witnesses, including Dr Amit Goel, the consultant histopathologist who performed a biopsy on Paloma. She alleged that inadequate tissue had been taken for a FISH test—a procedure that might have offered alternative diagnostic possibilities. However, Dr Goel repeatedly denied that this would have changed the treatment plan, and the coroner chastised Ms Shemirani for making factually incorrect claims and attempting to derail the proceedings.
The coroner’s patience was tested further when Paloma Shemirani accused participants of mispronouncing her name and submitted repeated motions for recusal of the coroner and legal representatives. These disruptions, along with references to conspiracy theories and her continued insistence that her daughter’s diagnosis was flawed, complicated the inquest and highlighted the difficulty of navigating such emotionally fraught situations in a legal setting.
Paloma Shemirani’s influence over Paloma was undeniable, both in life and in death. As a forceful advocate for alternative medicine, she shaped Paloma’s worldview and inspired her resistance to conventional treatment. While many observers might view Paloma as a victim of misinformation, others argue that she exercised her right to bodily autonomy, even if it led to a tragic outcome.
Paloma Shemirani’s death at just 23 is a heartbreaking story of a young woman caught between the advice of medical experts and the strong convictions instilled in her by her upbringing. Her unwavering belief in natural healing, rejection of mainstream treatment, and distrust of conventional medicine paint a complex picture of individual autonomy clashing with scientific evidence.
The inquest has not only exposed the legal and ethical dilemmas surrounding patient consent and alternative therapies but also cast a spotlight on the enduring effects of health misinformation. As society grapples with rising skepticism toward medical science, especially in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic, Paloma’s case serves as both a cautionary tale and a deeply personal tragedy.
It reminds us of the importance of informed consent, the challenge of respecting personal beliefs while advocating for effective treatment, and the devastating consequences that can arise when ideology supersedes science. Whether seen as a young woman asserting her rights or as someone tragically misled, Paloma’s story will resonate long after the courtroom proceedings conclude.