There was a dispute as to whether the conclusions of a second independent expert psychiatrist should be accepted, and final declarations made in accordance with those conclusions.
The LA considered that the P lacked the capacity to make decisions about contraception and, in view of her obstetric history and current presentation, her treating team considered that it was in the P's best interests to have an intrauterine contraceptive device inserted at the time of her caesarean section in order both to reduce the risk of an unplanned future pregnancy and to enable family spacing. The court made the order sought.
Judgement, following an earlier extempore judgment by Hayden J, concerning the framework of applicable law where the Court is faced with making an anticipatory decision that may result in the deprivation of P’s liberty should they lose a capacity in the future, where the matter was urgent and where the health of an unborn child was also at stake.
Application for the P to have fitted an intrauterine contraceptive device at the same time as she undergoes a caesarean section. The application was granted.
Case summaries on every Court of Protection case & other relevant decisions with links to the full judgment where available.
Sign up for our free email alert
We do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
Useful books from Bath Publishing