Doctor concerned mother influenced daughter's cancer treatment, inquest hears
The Cambridge graduate refused chemotherapy after being diagnosed in December 2023, and died just seven months later in July - despite a doctor telling her she had an 80 per cent chance of survival if she underwent treatment.
Paloma's brothers have spoken out publicly in recent weeks, accusing their mother Kate Shemirani of influencing Paloma into refusing treatment that could have saved her life.
Kate is a former nurse who was struck off in 2021 for sharing anti-vaxx misinformation during the Covid-19 pandemic. She has a large following across social media, where she shares anti-medicine conspiracy theories to millions of people online.
Arunodaya Mohan, a consultant haematologist at Maidstone Hospital told the inquest on Friday at Oakwood House in Maidstone, Kent, that Kate had raised concerns with experts about the treatment plan seven months before Paloma's death.
Dr Mohan met Paloma on December 22 2023 to set out the treatment plan after her diagnosis. She told the inquest she recommended steroids and a PET (positron emission tomography) scan, adding that Paloma 'nodded in agreement'.
But soon after that, Paloma told Ms Mohan that she had not made her mind up about the treatment and wished to explore other options.
Dr Mohan said that she spoke on the phone with Paloma's mother, saying that she expressed 'concerns' about the side-effects of steroids.
Dr Mohan told the inquest: 'I didn't want to discuss with mum because I didn't think it would be helpful to her.'
Alison Hewitt, counsel to the inquest, later asked: 'Were there concerns that Ms Shemirani was influencing Paloma?'
Dr Mohan replied: 'That's right.'
Paloma declined to have the treatment, and when Dr Mohan asked why, there did not seem to be a specific reason, the inquest heard.
Ms Hewitt asked Dr Mohan if she questioned Paloma on whether her decision was influenced by anyone.
Dr Mohan said: 'She was very confident that it was her own decision and she was not influenced.'
Kate advocates for the use of 'natural medicine' to cure diseases, and credits alternative therapies for being cancer free after she was diagnosed with breast cancer in 2012, although her tumour was removed through surgery.
It is these kinds of conspiracy theories that Paloma's brothers, Gabriel and Sebastian Shemirani, believe led their sister to refuse treatment for cancer.
Kate and her husband Faramarz Shemirani have denied responsibility and claimed that 'Paloma died as a result of medical interventions' since her sons made the accusations, the BBC reported.
'My sister has passed away as a direct consequence of my mum's actions and beliefs,' Paloma's brother Sebastian told the BBC.
'And I don't want anyone else to go through the same pain or loss that I have."
Paloma began suffering chest pains after she graduated from the University of Cambridge and was later diagnosed with cancers after doctors found a mass in her lung.
She was told the cancer could be fatal if left untreated, but that she had an 80 per cent chance of recovery with treatment.
Her mother then spent two days with her as an inpatient at Maidstone Hospital, which Paloma's boyfriend claimed could have influenced her decision to reject chemotherapy.
Her brother, Gabriel, then began a legal case arguing that Paloma should have an assessment of the appropriate medical treatment for her.
However, Paloma died before the case reached its conclusion in July 2024.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Sun
15 minutes ago
- The Sun
Common medicines may not work for some people based on their DNA, experts find
A PILOT scheme has revealed a widespread genetic sensitivity to common medicines which could increase side effects or stop them working as they should. The trial saw 2,200 adults undergo whole genome sequencing to analyse how their individual DNA responds to the likes of antibiotics and over the counter painkillers. 1 A staggering 99 per cent showed a genetic variant that affects their sensitivity to certain medicines. This could mean some drugs, including over the counter, everyday painkillers, antibiotics and other prescription medications, won't work for some people based on their individual DNA. The blood test, part of Bupa's My Genomic Health scheme, also looked their genetic risk of developing 36 preventable diseases including cancers, heart conditions and type 2 diabetes. It found 91 per cent of participants were found to be at risk of developing a disease with genetic and lifestyle risk factors, such as fatty liver disease, breast cancer and certain heart diseases. While 73 per cent had multiple genetic variants that put them at raised risk of developing a condition that could be prevented or detected early, leading to better health outcomes, including the likes of high cholesterol, skin cancer and type 2 diabetes. And 49 per cent were found to be carriers of a genetic variant that could lead to raised risk of certain condition in future generations. Following the successful pilot, Medication Check can now be purchased through Bupa, and will also be available to more than three million its customers as part of its workplace health scheme. A saliva test will establish what medications are most likely to be effective, those with increased risk of adverse side effects, or ones that won't work for them at all. Dr Rebecca Rohrer, clinical innovation and genomics director for Bupa, said: 'We've long known that most medications only work for 30-50 per cent of the population. 'However, this pilot has highlighted just how significantly individual genomes impact the effectiveness of medications in treating conditions. Beware 3 of the most dangerous medicines in the world - including one found in almost EVERY home 'With more than half of us regularly taking a prescription medication and an increasing number affected by a chronic condition, it's crucial that people are prescribed the right medicine from the start, tailored to their unique genetic makeup. 'In the longer term, genomics is key to early detection and even preventing some illnesses altogether.' After completing the at-home medication check, patients will be offered a GP consultation with the healthcare provider to review any medication identified in their genetic tests. It comes as Bupa is about to introduce two new products to its My Genomic Health suite later this year, that will help to prevent or detect illness earlier. The DNA Health Check will give people early warning of an increased genetic risks of four different conditions - breast cancer, prostate cancer, type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease. While the Advanced DNA Health Check will combine insights from medication, disease risk, carrier status and traits, and will look at the genetic risk of developing conditions such as heart disease, metabolic disease and 10 types of cancer. Carlos Jaureguizar, CEO for Bupa Global, India & UK, said: 'Whole genomic sequencing is fundamentally changing our approach to healthcare, pivoting from treatment to prevention. 'It has the power to become a health passport that people can reference throughout their lives. 'We firmly believe genomics is the path to health innovation and prevention, reducing the nation's health burden and giving people personalised knowledge of their own genomic profile to live well for longer.'
Telegraph
15 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Revealed: The worst place in England to get prostate cancer
Men are almost twice as likely to be diagnosed with terminal prostate cancer in some parts of the country than others, The Telegraph can reveal. Patients in Devon and Cornwall fared worst of all, followed by those in Yorkshire, the North East and Cumbria, according to the first study to examine geographical variation in such detail. Those in London had the best chance, with the lowest number of cases being diagnosed when the disease had spread beyond the prostate, along with Kent and Medway, Dorset, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight. Areas with higher rates of advanced cases had fewer diagnoses of prostate cancer overall, with experts saying chances of survival were far too dependent on whether men are offered a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) blood test. Health Secretary Wes Streeting said the findings were 'deeply troubling' and 'highlight unacceptable inequalities in our healthcare system'. The Telegraph is campaigning for the introduction of targeted screening, so those most at risk, such as black men and those with a family history of disease, are offered PSA tests. Mr Streeting said: 'We're examining the introduction of targeted screening, but any decision must be evidence-led. 'That is why the UK National Screening Committee is looking at this as a priority – including reviewing the evidence for screening men with a family history of prostate cancer.' Charity Prostate Cancer UK said the findings from the National Prostate Cancer Audit add to a 'mountain of proof' that too many men are getting an unfair deal.
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Sam Faiers is branded 'irresponsible and naive' by 'horrified' skin doctor after admitting her three children don't wear sunscreen as she wrongly claims many SPF brands are 'harmful' in controversial statement
A leading skin doctor has slammed Sam Faiers on Wednesday after she admitted she doesn't put sunscreen on her children in a controversial opinion on SPF. Currently on holiday in Mallorca, the mother-of-three took to Instagram on Tuesday as she responded to a fans question asking what suntan lotion brand she uses. The former TOWIE star revealed none of her family use sunscreen as she wrongly claimed some brands of SPF are 'harmful' and full of 'toxic ingredients'. Now skin cancer prevention doctor Ross Perry has told Daily Mail he is 'absolutely horrified' by Sam's comments and called her 'naive and irresponsible'. Dr Perry, who is the owner of skin clinics chain Cosmedics, claimed the reality star is 'misleading' fans into not using sunscreen on their children and it can 'double the risk of getting skin cancer' as they 'do not build up a tolerance to sun exposure'. He told Daily Mail: 'I am absolutely horrified at Sam Faiers' comments to followers (2.5 million of them!) are both irresponsible and naive. 'Children do not build up a tolerance to sun exposure, they are just storing up more sun damage for later on in life.' He continued: 'It is a well-known fact that children if they get any degree of sunburn as a child it more than doubles their risk of getting skin cancer at a later date so that is completely false and misleading. 'Children do NOT build up a tolerance to sun exposure. I would totally advocate the use of sun protective clothing as a alternative for those who do not tolerate suncream being regularly applied, especially for children regularly in and out of the water, but they will only cover certain areas so an SPF is still required. 'It is misleading to say that children need to have sunlight in order to promote their health as they will absorb more than enough sunlight through day-to-day activities rather as an over exposure or potential sunburn on holidays. 'The standards that still apply and are good guidance are that people apply SPF when out in particularly hot sun environments and do not take the risk of getting any sunburn and that involves wearing hats, appropriate clothing and avoiding hot times of the day for sunbathing.' 'Remember that ANY tan or sunburn is creating damage to the skin so SPF should always be worn in the sun,' he concluded. Sam revealed that she doesn't use suncream on her children by sharing a snap of her youngest son Edward, two, playing in the shade. She wrote: 'So this is always a bit of a controversial one, but honestly, me and my whole family don't actually wear sunscreen. 'Over the years, the kids have built up a really good tolerance to being in the sun. Of course if it's really hot and the sun feels too harsh I'll make sure we head into the shade... usually around lunchtime we'll go in, have something to eat and just avoid those peak hours. 'I'm really careful about sunscreen in general, because a lot of them are actually pretty harmful and full of toxic ingredients.' Sam then revealed the alternative way she makes sure her children stay safe in the sun as she added: 'If you do want to protect your kids, I think SPF swimwear is such a good and safer option. 'But also, don't be afraid of the sun! Early in the morning or later in the afternoon when it's not as strong, I love letting the kids run around and soak it up, it's good for them. 'That said, I do always bring a Tallow Zinc SPF with me when I go away, just in case. And hats or caps are a must! Especially for us ladies because no one wants extra sun damage (I've had my fair share over the years because I am such a sun lover!).' Sam isn't the first celebrity to admit they don't use SPF on their children after Kelsey Parker, TV personality and widow of The Wanted singer Tom Parkewr, previously claimed that her children 'don't burn' and wrongly alleged SPF 'causes skin cancer'. Speaking on her podcast with fellow mum Georgia Jones she said: 'My kids do not wear sun cream.' Instead, she uses 'organic' sun cream to protect her children and claimed they 'do not burn'. 'Sun cream is so bad', she said, adding that growing up she 'never used to wear sun cream, sun cream causes skin cancer'. 'The only thing that I may put on them is an organic sun cream. My kids, we went on holiday, I never put sun cream on them and they do not burn.' Lauryn Goodman also spoke out about sun cream last year after she took to Instagram to tell her followers: 'you're brought up to wear sun cream [to] protect yourself', but 'everything you think you know isn't correct'. She insisted: 'training your skin is key' as she added: 'It's about building up your melanin to handle the sun as well slowly. 'I did it with K [her eldest son] and will do it with little girlie.' Responding to a comment from a follower who advised that UV rash vests offer 'more protection' than cream, she also said 'skin is so much better in the sun'. Dr Bav Shergill a consultant dermatologist at the Queen Victoria Hospital, London and spokesman for the British Association of Dermatologists hit back at her claims. He previously told the Daily Mail: 'Sunscreens are a safe and effective way to protect your skin from burning and other forms of sun damage. 'Millions of people have used sunscreen over many decades so we can be confident about their safety profile. 'For people with lighter skin tones, there is a common misconception that you can build up a base tan which will protect you. 'A tan is a reaction to sun damage, so to develop a base tan, you have to damage your skin. Responding to a comment from a follower who advised that UV rash vests offer 'more protection' than cream, she also said 'skin is so much better in the sun' 'Evidence also suggests that a "base tan" offers the equivalent of SPF 4 – not enough to provide meaningful protection.' He added: 'If you don't want to use sunscreen, you need to be really on top of other forms of sun protection. 'Make good use of shade, minimise the time you spend out in the sun when the UV index is three or above, and wear clothing that covers your skin. 'These tend to be very effective ways of protecting your skin – though ideally you would use sunscreen in addition to these options as a final line of defence.' Meanwhile Dr Richard Parsons, a senior lecturer in biochemical toxicology at Kings College London, warned that any sunburn still raises the cancer and long term damage risk. He told the Daily Mail last year: 'Building a base tan is fine. But you have still got to have that level of protection. 'If you burn you are still going to increase your chances of getting those DNA mutations which can increase your risk of cancer. 'As you get older, you can get lost elasticity in the skin you can get skin damage like wrinkles. So that's actually lasting damage.' He added: 'We're not talking "I've got a real bad sunburn, but it's ok it'll be gone in a few weeks". That will have lasting implications.'
