Court of Protection Hub
  • Home
  • Resources
    • Key cases archive
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About the site

Cases

An NHS Trust v CS (Termination of Pregnancy) [2016] EWCOP 10

9/3/2016

 
​This case concerns an application for an order that it would in the best interests of a young woman (CS), who lacks capacity, to undergo surgery to terminate her pregnancy. The hearing was before Mr. Justice Baker.
​The Facts
CS has two children from a previous relationship which ended shortly before Christmas 2015. This relationship involved domestic violence perpetrated on her by the partner. 

Upon discovering she was pregnant, CS told a number of people she did not want to keep the baby. Her sister had accompanied CS to get a previous termination and CS again asked if her sister would accompany her to terminate this pregnancy.

CS was then assaulted by her partner which resulted in serious head injuries, fractures, intracranial bleeding and brain damage. CS remains in the applicant hospital receiving care and treatment.

The medical evidence shows that CS has been profoundly affected by her injuries resulting in her wandering, assaulting staff and falling over. Following a fall, her CT scan showed no evidence of recovery. CS is suffering from post traumatic amnesia and it is not known when this will cease.

The applicant made an urgent application as the time limit in which surgical termination can be carried out was due to expire in a week. After this date a termination may still be possible, but cooperation by the patient is required and this could not be guaranteed of CS.

The applicant submitted that CS did not have capacity as she is unable to understand or retain information due to her post traumatic amnesia and frequently unable to provide coherent answers. The Official Solicitor agreed with this analysis.

The Law
The court considered sections 1-4 of the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Mental Capacity Act Code of Practice at para. 3.14.
It considered CC v KK [2012] EWHC 2136 (COP) (paras. 18 to 25) and drew on the following key principles:
  • A person is assumed to have capacity unless it is established otherwise. The burden of proof lies on the applicant. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
  • A person lacks capacity if at the material time she is unable to make a decision for herself due to an impairment of, or disturbance in the functioning of, the mind or brain. This test has two stages, the 'diagnostic test' as to whether there is an impairment and the 'functional test'.
  • The question is: whether, at the date on which the court is considering, the person lacks capacity to make decisions as to the issue in question.
  • The Code of Practice stresses that ‘it is important not to assess someone's understanding before they have been given relevant information about a decision’ (para. 4.16).
  • As per Macur J in LBL v RYJ [2010] EWHC 2664 (Fam) (at para. 58) - can the person ‘comprehend and weigh the salient details relevant to the decision to be made’.
  • A person is not to be treated as unable to make a decision merely because she makes an unwise decision.
  • The court must consider all relevant evidence and be aware of the difficulties which may arise as a result of close professional relationships.
Finally, the court considered PC v City of York Council [2013] EWCA Civ 478 highlighting the need for a sufficient causal relationship between the mental impairment identified and the inability to make the decision in question.

Decision
The court had two issues to determine:
  1. Does CS lack capacity?
  2. If so, what order should be made in her best interests?
Addressing the first issue of capacity, the court agreed the diagnostic and functional tests for capacity were satisfied. It was declared that CS lacked capacity to consent to medical treatment.

Turning to the second question, the court considered the evidence of CS's friends and family. Additionally, the court considered Aintree University Hospitals NHS Trust v James [2014] AC 591, Wye Valley NHS v B [2015] EWCOP 60 and Re X [2014] EWHC 1871 Fam.

It was found that, due to the clarity of CS's wishes prior to her injuries and in accordance with her overall health and welfare, it was in CS's best interests to authorise the termination of her pregnancy by surgery.
The prospects of an effective termination may have been lost if the decision as to termination were delayed.

Mr. Justice Baker declared it lawful for the applicant to use proportionate force. The applicant was directed to serve a plan on the Official Solicitor as to how restraint may be used if needed. In relation to costs, he ordered the applicant to pay 50 percent of the Official Solicitor's costs.

Discussion
The judgment accounted for the likelihood of future harm to CS:

"It is plain that continuing her pregnancy will involve a greater risk of injury to her physical health.  In saying that, I have regard to the opinion expressed by her consultant obstetrician that if she continues with the pregnancy it is more likely than not that as she becomes larger she will become more prone to falls and cause herself significant injury...It is therefore in my judgment likely that termination will promote her physical recovery and rehabilitation."


This case highlights the importance of weighing up all the evidence and applying all the relevant criteria when assessing capacity to make a decision, particularly where the individual in question has fluctuating wishes. Mr. Justice Baker was aided in this case by CS's clear unambiguous wishes prior to her injury, as opposed to her unclear and subsequently contradicted wishes to keep the baby. He was also impressed by evidence from her supportive family and friends who were instrumental in the proceedings in explaining past and present circumstances.

Read the full text of the judgment on Bailii

Comments are closed.
    Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available. 

    Support the Hub
    This site is free to access but if you find it useful then please consider a contribution by way of support for our work.  Click here to contribute.

    Sign up for our free email alert

    We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at  any time

    RSS Feed


    More from Bath Publishing


    Browse

    Categories

    All
    Advance Decisions
    Assessments
    Best Interests
    Capacity
    Committal
    Contact
    Contempt Of Court
    Coronavirus
    Costs
    Deputies
    Disclosure
    DNA Testing
    DOLs
    End Of Life Decisions
    Finance
    Gifts
    Habitual Residence
    Human Rights
    Inherent Jurisdiction
    Injunctions
    International
    Jurisdiction
    LPA/EPA
    LPAs
    Medical Treatment
    Personal Welfare
    Practice & Procedure
    Pregnancy & Contraception
    Publicity
    Religion
    Reporting
    Residence
    Settlement
    Sexual Relations
    Statutory Will
    Sterilisation And Termination

    Archives

    January 2023
    December 2022
    November 2022
    October 2022
    September 2022
    August 2022
    July 2022
    June 2022
    May 2022
    April 2022
    March 2022
    February 2022
    January 2022
    December 2021
    November 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    June 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    January 2021
    December 2020
    November 2020
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    December 2019
    November 2019
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    June 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    December 2018
    November 2018
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    June 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    February 2017
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    December 2015
    November 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    July 2015
    June 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015



Picture
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com
Manage your email preferences
Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy
  • Home
  • Resources
    • Key cases archive
  • Cases
  • News & Views
  • About the book
  • About the site