On 29 September 2010, Mrs Justice Macur, sitting in the High Court, ruled that a 69 year old woman, referred to as “D”, will be put under a general anaesthetic for six days, before undergoing an unwanted hysterectomy. D has refused to consent to the procedure after she was diagnosed with a prolapsed uterus. At fi rst glance, a hysterectomy might seem an overly invasive measure, however, the judge agreed that D’s condition was suffi ciently serious to justify surgery and, if left unaddressed, the consequences could be fatal. This case has followed on from the decision in DH NHS Foundation Trust v PS (see article in our July 2010 Medical Update), where a cancer patient, who lacked capacity under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, was compelled to have unwanted surgery despite her phobias of hospitals and needles.
Register Now As you are not an existing subscriber please register for your free daily legal newsfeed service.Register
If you have any questions about the service please contact firstname.lastname@example.org or call Lexology Customer Services on +44 20 7234 0606.
High Court rules on unwanted hysterectomy
If you are interested in submitting an article to Lexology, please contact Andrew Teague at email@example.com.
“I make an effort to read at least several articles each day and regularly share the particularly relevant or interesting articles with my colleagues. I greatly appreciate the inclusion of the Lexology service by the State Bar of...
“I make an effort to read at least several articles each day and regularly share the particularly relevant or interesting articles with my colleagues. I greatly appreciate the inclusion of the Lexology service by the State Bar of Texas and have recommended that my friends and colleagues join the Corporate Counsel Section of the State Bar in order to obtain this service for themselves.”
Edward J. Willey III
Huawei Technologies (USA)