Mushroom Killer Erin Patterson Gets Taxpayer-Funded Ozempic While Serving 33-Year Prison Term

Erin Patterson, the Australian woman convicted of murdering three relatives with a meal containing deadly death cap mushrooms, has reportedly been approved for Ozempic while serving life in prison, putting taxpayer-funded healthcare at the centre of a fresh controversy.

Patterson, 51, is being held at Melbourne's Dame Phyllis Frost Centre after being sentenced to life imprisonment with a 33-year non-parole period.

Now, reports that she has access to weight-loss injections have raised a fierce question about prison healthcare: should public money be used to fund this kind of treatment for someone convicted of three murders and one attempted murder?

Why Patterson Has Been Given Ozempic

The Victorian Department of Justice and Community Safety says weight-loss medication can be prescribed to prisoners when clinicians determine there is a clear medical need.

The department has also said access to prescribed weight-loss medication followed a coroner's recommendation after an inmate died in custody in circumstances linked to obesity.

The department does not comment on the individual medical circumstances of prisoners. Patterson's reported treatment has therefore not been publicly explained in detail by officials.

Ozempic is widely associated with weight loss, but it is also used to treat type 2 diabetes. The key issue, according to the department, is whether a clinician considers the treatment medically necessary.

The Taxpayer Controversy

That explanation has not stopped the backlash.

Victorian Shadow Minister for Police and Corrections Brad Battin has criticised the decision, arguing that taxpayers should not be forced to fund weight-loss injections for prisoners and saying diet and exercise should be considered instead.

The controversy is particularly striking because Patterson is not an ordinary prisoner. She became one of Australia's most notorious inmates after being convicted of the deaths of Don Patterson, Gail Patterson, and Heather Wilkinson.

Yet the prison system's position is that healthcare decisions are based on medical need, not the popularity or notoriety of the prisoner receiving treatment.

Patterson's History With Food

There is also important context behind the weight-loss treatment. During her trial, Patterson discussed longstanding problems involving binge-eating and body image. Those details help explain why weight management may now form part of her medical care.

They do not, however, alter her legal status. Patterson continues to deny deliberately poisoning her relatives and is appealing her convictions.

The Dispute Over Her Prison Conditions

The Ozempic controversy has also become entangled with a separate dispute over Patterson's prison conditions.

Her lawyers have argued that she faces exceptionally restrictive conditions amounting to solitary confinement. That issue was significant when Justice Christopher Beale imposed her original sentence, with the judge considering the likelihood that her notoriety could leave her isolated for many years.

Prosecutors challenged that reasoning during the August 2026 Court of Appeal hearing.

Director of Public Prosecutions Brendan Kissane KC told the court there was no evidence Patterson would necessarily remain under those conditions for years. Prosecutors pointed to her access to exercise and lounge facilities, a library, television, and other activities, while noting that her conditions are reviewed.

That distinction matters because reports about Patterson's Ozempic treatment have linked the prescription to limited opportunities for exercise. The extent of those restrictions, however, remains disputed.

Patterson Is Not the Only Prisoner

The controversy also extends beyond Patterson. Another Victorian prisoner, Alicia Schiller, has reportedly been approved for Ozempic while incarcerated. Her case has previously drawn attention to taxpayer-funded medical treatment in prison.

That provides wider context for Patterson's prescription. The debate is not necessarily about whether one notorious prisoner has been singled out, but about how Victorian authorities determine which medical treatments prisoners should receive. For critics, the issue is public spending. For prison authorities, the stated test is medical necessity.

Her Murder Convictions Remain Under Appeal

Patterson was convicted in 2025 of murdering Don and Gail Patterson and Gail's sister Heather Wilkinson after serving them a beef Wellington containing death cap mushrooms at her Leongatha home in 2023.

Heather's husband, Ian Wilkinson, became seriously ill after eating the meal but survived. Patterson was also convicted of attempting to murder him.

She is appealing her convictions and seeking a retrial. Prosecutors are separately challenging her 33-year non-parole period, arguing the sentence was inadequate and that she should potentially never be released. The Court of Appeal has reserved its decision.

For now, Patterson remains behind bars while her legal battle continues and her reported Ozempic treatment fuels a very different debate.

At its heart is a question that reaches far beyond one prisoner: when medical treatment is considered necessary, should a prisoner's criminal history determine whether taxpayers should pay for it?