IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v30y2022i3p544-554..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

An Emerging Pattern? A Further Case of Anticipated Capacity Loss in Pregnancy: North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust V SR [2021] EWCOP 58

Author

Listed:
  • Aimee V Hulme

Abstract

In 2021, the Court of Protection made a third anticipatory declaration that it was lawful for a capacitous pregnant woman to be subject to possible forcible treatment contingent on her losing capacity before or during birth. North Middlesex University Hospital v SR raises three interesting questions for discussion which this commentary will explore. First, it is submitted that there is a growing, yet alarming, trend in the use of anticipatory or contingent declarations to manage such challenging cases of future loss of, or fluctuating, capacity in pregnant women. This trend now seems to have been widened by SR and could potentially capture any pregnant woman, rather than those in narrower, exceptional circumstances. Secondly, this commentary discusses the judge’s justification of basing the issuing of anticipatory or contingent declarations on a ‘real risk’ P will lose capacity in the future, highlighting the potential problems with framing such controversial powers on ‘risk’. Finally, it provides an exploration of the alternative option of utilising advance care plans to better deal with these types of matters, in the name of giving back the power to pregnant women to decide on what should happen to them in labour in the event that they do lose capacity before or during delivery.

Suggested Citation

  • Aimee V Hulme, 2022. "An Emerging Pattern? A Further Case of Anticipated Capacity Loss in Pregnancy: North Middlesex University Hospital NHS Trust V SR [2021] EWCOP 58," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 544-554.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:3:p:544-554.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwac021
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:30:y:2022:i:3:p:544-554.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.