Mental Capacity – Court of Protection Authorises Non-Consensual Caesarean Birth

30th September 2019 By Arman Khosravi

Where people lack the mental capacity to make important decisions for themselves, judges will step in to ensure that their best interests are served, as was demonstrated by an unusual case in which the Court of Protection (CoP) authorised the planned Caesarean delivery of a disabled woman’s baby, despite her expressed wish for a natural birth.

The woman, aged 25, was born with microcephaly and has learning and behavioural difficulties. Living in sheltered accommodation, there was evidence that she understood only simple language and had no inkling of the complications that can arise in childbirth. She had made clear her desire for her child to be delivered conventionally, but the NHS trust responsible for her local hospital was convinced, on the basis of unanimous expert evidence, that such a course would put both her and her baby at risk.

The CoP accepted that the woman lacked capacity to make her own decision as to how her baby should be delivered. A care plan was approved whereby she would be taken to hospital, on the pretext of undergoing an examination, before a Caesarean delivery under general anaesthetic was performed. The CoP was satisfied that this element of subterfuge was justified in order to minimise the risk that she would resist the procedure and maximise the chances of a successful delivery.

The care plan was sanctioned under extreme time pressure as the woman was believed to already be in the early stages of labour. However, in a postscript to its ruling, the CoP noted that it had subsequently received happy news. In the event, it had proved unnecessary to implement the care plan as the woman had been able to give birth to her baby naturally, in accordance with her wishes. The distress and anger that she would inevitably have suffered on undergoing an operation to which she had not consented had thus been avoided.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Relationship Status Put Under Spotlight in Divorce Case

26th February, 2024 By

Divorce proceedings are rarely cut and dry, especially where the passage of time adds complexity to matters. This was certainly so in a recent case that required a Family Court judge to rule on the validity of a decree nisi. The case centred on the divorce proceedings of a couple in their fifties and focused on a decree nisi that had been pronounced in 2012, following an application by the husband. Now seeking to finalise the divorce with a decree absolute, the husband asserted that the decree nisi had been properly...

Will Execution – Remote Witnessing Legislation Expires

22nd February, 2024 By

A legal amendment that was made during the COVID-19 pandemic allowing the witnessing of wills to take place via videoconferencing has officially expired. As of 31 January 2024, the Wills Act 1837 (Electronic Communications) (Amendment) (Coronavirus) Order 2020 is no longer active. It was introduced in response to the pandemic, as a means of facilitating the valid execution of wills via remote witnessing. The Order applied to wills made between 31 January 2020 and 31 January 2022, but was later extended to 31 January 2024. Section 9 of the Wills Act...

Psychotherapy Condition Leads to Contact Order Appeal

20th February, 2024 By

Wherever possible, the courts will do what they can to support contact between parents and children but, in some instances, that contact comes with conditions attached. The nature of such conditions was the cause of contention in recent appeal proceedings brought by the father of two young boys. The man appealed against a High Court order that allowed for contact periods with his children, which would progress from supervised to unsupervised and increase in length but were dependent upon him engaging in psychotherapy. This condition had been imposed following a...

Beware of Builders Offering Cut-Price Work – Court of Appeal Cautionary Tale

16th February, 2024 By

Every householder should understand the dire risks involved in opening their doors to those promising to carry out cut-price building work. A Court of Appeal decision provided distressing examples of almost the worst that can happen. A householder approaching retirement age was taken in by a workman who knocked on his door, offering to paint the front of his home for £1,000. He was introduced to another man – the offender – whom the workman described as his business partner. The pair proceeded, over a period of months, to carry...