Ella Moulsdale, Zuhrah’s next of kin, said that Zuhrah had repeatedly buzzed for a nurse and begged her to conduct basic medical tests.
“As she continued to be ignored, she then started to beg for an ambulance to come because she knew that something was happening,” Moulsdale said.
A prison officer told her to wait for the night nurse to start her shift at 11pm.
At 10:30pm the nurse arrived to take her vitals – a series of tests to measure key bodily functions – and an ECG (electrocardiogram) test. She said she would be back in 10 minutes with the test results.
By 12:30am, the nurse had still not returned, so Zuhrah buzzed prison medical staff for help, saying “Can you ring an ambulance? I’m scared”. They hung up on her.
“I’ve got her on the phone and listening to her audibly in pain and unable to respond properly. And all I can do is ask her to breathe heavier so I can ensure that she’s still breathing. I’m not a first responder, I’m not a medical practitioner,” Grant told MEE.
“This is how people die in their cells. She could barely get up to call me, and all I could do was try to call for the nurse for her, and then get back to listening to her cry in pain and struggle to breathe."
At 2am, the nurse returned and informed her that “you don’t decide if you go to hospital, I do”.
Meanwhile, Zuhrah’s friends repeatedly called the prison requesting an ambulance, who they said “kept hanging up” on them. They tried ringing for ambulances directly, but were informed that this would have to be arranged through the prison.
“We were being told by ambulance operators that they have no power over whether an ambulance goes to a prison or not, because it is up to the prison whether they will accept an ambulance," Moulsdale said.
“If someone collapses in a prison, they don’t get an ambulance sent to them. The prison gets to decide.”
From 8am onwards, four NHS doctors also repeatedly tried to contact the prison. James Smith, a doctor who supports the hunger strikers and their families, told MEE that he was put through to an answer machine when he called the prison.
At 9:30am, the prison finally called an ambulance after Zuhrah lost consciousness. The prison did not notify Zuhrah’s next of kin about her hospitalisation, despite promising they would.
Starmer is going to get raked badly over the coals, and rightly fucking so, if any of these hunger strikers die on his watch. They are obviously political prisioners and won’t be forgotten at all, he’s literally about to create a martyr on UK soil
On the other hand, they’ve been held on remand because one of their co-defendants was given compassionate bail and has absconded and remains a fugitive. They’re an obvious flight risk. Their trials cover some rather shocking acts of violence and that must be dealt with in court.
Can the legal system back down from the principle that defendants in criminal proceedings must be made to stand trial rather than wandering off?
What were the shocking acts of violence? There’s no mention in the article, it just says these people are accused of being involved with Palestine Action, and links to an article about some members of the group vandalising two fighter jets in July.
Still, even with the flight risk, even if there are shocking acts of violence committed by these people - you can’t just repeatedly block medical aid as somebody undergoes a medical emergency. They’ll die. That is murder.
I mentioned the violence in another comment. The planes were tankers not fighters, and had no involvement in Gaza.
We don’t have the full picture of the episode. Clearly there was distress, but it mentions medical supervision taking place, and that when the condition deteriorated to a dangerous degree an ambulance was summoned.
Of course random people can’t send ambulances to prisons, if that’s what you mean by “blocking”.
Ah, my mistake I wasn’t aware of that level of violence. Thanks for clarifying. To make clear where I stand re that: I still wouldn’t support prisoners dying, no matter what level of violence they’ve committed.
By “blocking”, I meant when four NHS doctors were unable to get an ambulance sent to the prison. But it’s good that the prison did eventually summon an ambulance, bit of a shame they waited until the accused had actually lost consciousness. Seems like cutting it a bit fine really but I’m no medical emergency expert, unlike those four NHS doctors that were stonewalled.
Four doctors who didn’t know the patient’s condition, medical history, nor what measures were being taken already, and were intervening for purely political reasons in a private capacity. Random doctors don’t get to intervene or send ambulances to prisons either.
We don’t know if the prisoner was given adequate care. Neither do those four doctors.
I think we disagree there really. If a doctor calls a prison concerning the medical state of a prisoner, I don’t see why the prison should ignore the call. Random doctors should get to intervene in medical emergencies; they’re doctors, it’s their job to intervene in medical emergencies.
So you would disregard your medical team because some person phones claiming to be a doctor, voicing an opinion despite having no actual knowledge about the case in hand? I don’t see that as a reasonable expectation.
How shocking are we talking? It is my understanding that they were non-violent and no need to remand essentially
The first of the linked trials is currently underway, in which one defendant is accused of attacking a police officer with a sledgehammer; she has not returned to work as she now has ongoing issues with a fractured spine.
That is shocking, surprised not more widely reported. There’s quite a few hunger strikers though, are they all to be tarred by one accusation?
It is being reported, but there are restrictions as it is an ongoing trial and because it’s the first of two linked trials. The first trial covers the people who were allegedly there for the raid and the attack on the police officers. The second covers the people who allegedly helped plan the action or who later gave material support to the defendants in trial 1.
The hunger strikers are defendants in the second of the linked trials.
