Re M B (Caesarian section)
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judgment Date | 26 March 1997 |
| Neutral Citation | [1997] EWCA Civ 3093 |
| Date | 26 March 1997 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
Court of Appeal
Before Lord Justice Butler-Sloss, Lord Justice Saville and Lord Justice Ward
Medical treatment - phobia against needles resulting in incompetence - non-consensual treatment
A woman who needed and desired to have a Caesarian section but whose fear of needles caused her to panic in the operating theatre and refuse to have the anaesthetic and undergo the operation was, at the moment of panic, suffering from a mental impairment which made her temporarily incompetent and, as the Caesarian section was in her best interests, it was appropriate for the court to order that it would be lawful for doctors to operate on her without her consent.
The Court of Appeal so held in giving reasons for dismissing on February 18 an appeal by the woman against a decision of Mr Justice Hollis to grant a declaration that it would be lawful for the operation to take place.
Mr Robert Francis, QC, for the woman; Mr John Grace, QC, for the hospital; Mr Michael Hinchliffe as amicus curiae.
LORD JUSTICE BUTLER-SLOSS, giving the judgment of the court, said that in general it was a criminal and tortious assault to perform physically invasive medical treatment, however minimal the invasion might be, without the patient's consent.
A mentally competent patient had an absolute right to refuse consent to medical treatment for any reason, rational or irrational, or for no reason at all even where that decision might lead to his or her death.
Medical treatment could be undertaken in an emergency even if, through lack of capacity, no consent had been competently given, provided the treatment was a necessity and did no more than was reasonably required in the best interests of the patient.
All the recent decisions in Caesarian section cases arose in circumstances of urgency or extreme urgency. The evidence was in general limited in scope and the mother was not always represented as a party. With one exception the court had decided in all the cases that the mother did not have the capacity to make the decision.
In such extremely worrying situations it was important to keep in mind the basic principles laid down in the authorities and the court should approach the crucial question of competence bearing the following considerations in mind:
1 Every person was presumed to have the capacity to consent to or to refuse medical treatment unless and until that presumption was rebutted.
2 A competent woman who had the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Fitzpatrick v F.K. and another
...of medical treatment) [1993] Fam 95, In Re C (Adult: refusal of medical treatment) [1994] 1 WLR 290, In re MB (Medical Treatment) [1997] 2 FLR 426, HE v A Hospital NHS Trust [2003] EWHC 1017 (Fam), [2003] 2 FLR 408 and Malette v Shulman (1990) 67 DLR followed - Constitution of Ireland, 1937......
-
Ealing London Borugh Council v KS & Others
...that she is unlikely ever to have the capacity to consent to marriage. Oophorectomy: Capacity to Consent80. In Re MB (Medical treatment) [1997] 2 FLR 426Butler-Sloss LJ (as she then was) considered capacity to consent to medical treatment. At p437 she said "A person lacks capacity if some i......
-
St. George's Healthcare N.H.S. Trust v S
... ... -being or even the life of the patient, the issue of capacity should be examined by an independent psychiatrist, ideally one approved under section 12(2) of the Mental Health Act. If following this assessment there remains a serious doubt about the patient's competence, and the seriousness or ... ...
-
Practice Note (Official Solicitor: Declaratory Proceedings)
...The test of capacity to consent to or refuse treatment is set out in Re MB (an adult) (medical treatment) [1997] 2 FCR 541 at 553–554, [1997] 2 FLR 426 at 437. In the Official Solicitor’s view, this test can be used for a wide range of decisions. Evidence from a psychiatrist or psychologist......
-
The Legal Test Of Capacity And Best Interest Decisions In The Court Of Protection
...decisions'. In assessing best interests, Mr Justice Knowles referred back to the earlier case of Re MB (An Adult: Medical Treatment) (1997) 8 Med LR 217, quoting specifically at 'The court is not limited to consideration of best medical interests, instead best interests encompasses medical,......
-
When the exception is the rule: Rationalising the medical exception in Scots law
...behalf regarding medical treatment.249 See the discussion in Laurie, Harmon & Porter 2016: ch 4.250 See, eg, Re M B (Medical treatment) [1997] 2 FLR 426 (CA).251 See Lewis 2012: 357–358.Fundamini Vol 26 Issue 1.indb 33 2020/09/07 7:51 AM© Juta and Company (Pty) JONATHAN BROWN34law “assault”......
-
WHEN THE EXCEPTION IS THE RULE: RATIONALISING THE MEDICAL EXCEPTION IN SCOTS LAW
...behalf regarding medical treatment.249 See the discussion in Laurie, Harmon & Porter 2016: ch 4.250 See, eg, Re M B (Medical treatment) [1997] 2 FLR 426 (CA).251 See Lewis 2012: 357–358.Fundamini Vol 26 Issue 1.indb 33 2020/09/07 7:51 AM© Juta and Company (Pty) JONATHAN BROWN34law “assault”......
-
Abortion, Autonomy and Prenatal Diagnosis
...[1990] 573 A 2d 1235.Re J (A minor)(Medical Treatment) [1991] Fam 33.Re F (in utero) [1988] Fam 122.Re MB (An Adult: Medical Treatment) [1997] 2 FLR 426.Re S (Adult)(Refusal of Medical Treatment)[1993] Fam 123.Re T (Adult: Refusal of Treatment) [1993] Fam 95.Norfolk and Norwich NHS Trust vW......
-
The Protection of Life During Pregnancy Act 2013
...caesarean section as the foetus does not have anydistinct rights – this was confirmed in the cases of Re MB (An Adult: Medical Treatment)[1997] 2 FLR 426 and St George’s Healthcare NHS Trust v. S [1998] 3 All ER 673. Thesituation would clearly be different in an Irish context in light of Ar......