Judgment giving reasons for refusing an anticipatory declaration involving obstetric care for T.
T had a diagnosis of Persistent Delusion Disorder but had been assessed to have capacity in mid July though there was a concern that capacity may fluctuate as there had been previous episodes when staff had been unable to carry out antenatal checks because of T's behaviour. Her due date was 6th August 2022. The OS was sent the bundle on 29th July.
In this judgment, Lieven J comments that the application should have been made much earlier and goes on to note at 
"T had indicated quite clearly, at a point when no one disputed her capacity, that she would enter into an advanced declaration about medical treatment. In my view that was a far more appropriate way to deal with a potential loss of capacity, rather than engaging the Court in making an invasive and draconian order. Such an approach protects the woman’s autonomy, in a way that an anticipatory declaration does not do."
She adds at  that, if there was a true emergency, then the clinicians can use the doctrine of necessity to protect the mother. She therefore declined to make the declaration.
Read the judgment on the National Archives
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
More from Bath Publishing