|
Judgment giving reasons for refusing an anticipatory declaration involving obstetric care for T.
Ex tempore judgment following an urgent application concerning obstetric care for SM, a 16 year old who is 39 weeks pregnant.
Application for declarations that R lacks capacity to decide whether her unborn baby should be delivered pre-term by elective Caesarean section and that this would be in her best interests.
Urgent application by parents to extract and store the sperm of their son who was dying following a catastrophic stroke.
Judgment following an out of hours application by an NHS Trust concerning their plans for managing a woman with a schizoaffective disorder during the birth of her first child.
The court had to make a best interests decision in relation to the mode of delivery of the unborn child being carried by the P.
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.
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 alertWe do not share your details with any third parties and you can unsubscribe at any time
More from Bath PublishingBrowse |
RSS Feed
|
This site is published by Bath Publishing Limited
www.bathpublishing.com Manage your email preferences Read the Bath Publishing Privacy Policy |