Family Law Awards 2020
Shortlist announced - time to place your vote!
Court of Protection Practice 2020
'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
Resolution issues Brexit notes for family lawyers ahead of IP completion day
Family lawyer organisation, Resolution, has issued two joint notes to assist family lawyers in England and Wales ahead of the end of the Brexit transition/implementation period at 11 pm on 31 December...
Online filing is real-time on New Year's Eve: practice direction change to accommodate EU withdrawal arrangements
I have heard that there will be an amendment to the relevant practice directions to provide that online applications received on New Year’s Eve after 4:30 PM and before 11:00 PM will count as...
Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Foundation Trust v AB
The issue in this case concerned AB’s capacity to make specific decisions about treatment relating to her anorexia nervosa. She was 28 years old and had suffered with anorexia since the age of...
EU laws continue until at least 2038 and beyond
The UK left the EU on 31 January 2020.  But in matters of law it fully leaves on 31 December 2020.  But EU laws will continue to apply, and be applied, in the English family courts from 1...
Remote hearings in family proceedings – how is justice perceived?
The motion for the recent Kingsley Napley debate:  “This House believes remote hearings are not remotely fair” was carried with a fairly balanced 56% in favour and 44% against....
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