I'm really conflicted on this. I 100% am behind people being able to seek whatever treatment they would like. And I don't believe that they should have been able to force her into palliative care against her wishes and the wishes of her family.

But how was she going to pay for the experimental treatment? That type of treatment is really expensive. She wanted to go to Canada to get it, but she was not a Canadian. Canada had no obligation to pay for any treatment she got there. And considering how Big Pharma is not to be trusted, why would it be a good idea to trust them about this therapy?

And why are they making a point out of telling us she's Christian? I don't see anywhere how her religion affects this case. I get the impression that because of her name and appearance people might presume she's non-Christian. I kind of feel like they're trying to trigger other Christians into getting angry on her behalf over this in some misguided belief that Christians are being persecuted in the UK.

PS- I just saw a post on this thread that has made me look at this a different way. Someone from the UK who has been following this story says that she was free to leave anytime she wanted. The articles I read made it seem like she was under the equivalent of house arrest when she was put into palliative care. If that's not true and she had the opportunity to leave to go to Canada whenever she wanted, then the Doctors in the UK aren't responsible for her not seeking treatment there, in my opinion.