Family Court Practice, The
Order the 2021 edition due out in May
Court of Protection Practice 2021
'Court of Protection Practice goes from strength to strength, having...
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance Tenth Edition
Jackson's Matrimonial Finance is an authoritative specialist text...
Latest articles
One in four family lawyers contemplates leaving the profession, Resolution reveals
A quarter of family justice professionals are on the verge of quitting the profession as the toll of lockdown on their mental health becomes clear, the family law group Resolution revealed today,...
Family Law Awards adds a Wellbeing Award - enter now
This past year has been different for everyone, but family law professionals working on the front line of family justice have faced a more challenging, stressful and demanding time than most. To...
Pension sharing orders: Finch v Baker
The Court of Appeal judgment in Finch v Baker [2021] EWCA Civ 72 was released on 28 January 2021. The judgment provides some useful guidance on not being able to get what are essentially...
Eight things you need to know: Personal Injury damages in divorce cases
The “pre-acquired” or “non-matrimonial” argument is one which has taken up much commentary in family law circles over recent years.  However, the conundrum can be even...
Misogyny as a hate crime – what it means and why it’s needed
In recent weeks, the government announced that it will instruct all police forces across the UK to start recording crimes motivated by sex or gender on an experimental basis- effectively making...
View all articles

MEDICAL TREATMENT: Trust A and Trust B v H [2006] EWHC 1230 (Fam)

Sep 29, 2018, 17:26 PM
Slug : trust-a-and-trust-b-v-h-2006-ewhc-1230-fam
Meta Title :
Meta Keywords :
Canonical URL :
Trending Article : No
Prioritise In Trending Articles : No
Date : Jun 7, 2006, 10:00 AM
Article ID : 86407

(Family Division; Sir Mark Potter P; 25 May 2006) [2006] FLR (forthcoming)

The 45-year old patient suffered from schizophrenia and was severely delusional. She was diagnosed with a large ovarian tumour, with strong indications that the tumour might be malignant. Although clearly suffering pain and distress she had refused further medical treatment; at times she denied the existence of the problem, at others she explained her refusal by her wish to have children (she already had two children with whom she had no contact). Even if the tumour proved to be benign, without treatment she was likely to die as a result of the impact the cyst was having on her ability to breathe and eat; her condition was also causing her mental state to deteriorate. The experts unanimously agreed that she lacked capacity to give consent to the treatment, and that surgery involving a total abdominal hysterectomy would be in her best interests. The hospital trusts sought a declaration that this medical treatment, and the use of appropriate physical restraint and or sedation, would be lawful.

The patient lacked capacity to make decisions about her medical treatment for the ovarian cyst and her gynaecological condition, failing to appreciate the seriousness of the condition, and the threat to life which it represented. In particular, her assertion that her objection to operative procedure was based on a desire to be able to bear children in the future, like her misplaced belief that she had no children, was delusional. Bearing in mind the positive (not absolute) obligation imposed by Art 2 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 to give life-sustaining treatment where responsible medical opinion was of the view that such treatment was in the patient's best interests, the surgery was in this patient's best interests. The declaration did not cover the forcible administration of chemotherapy contrary to the patient's consent or stated wishes.

Categories :
  • Archive
  • Judgments
Tags :
Provider :
Product Bucket :
Recommend These Products
Related Articles
Load more comments
Comment by from