Ms Pacchieri had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section after suffering a mental breakdown
Ms Pacchieri had her baby forcibly removed by caesarean section after suffering a mental breakdown

Pregnant woman with 'very severe' mental health problems could be forced to have Caesarean

The 36-year-old woman at the centre of this latest case has three other children and cannot be named in order to protect her privacy

Emily Dugan
Wednesday 11 December 2013 20:20
Comments

A pregnant woman with “very severe” mental health problems could be forcibly sedated and have her baby delivered via Caesarean section against her will if the need arose, a High Court Judge has ruled.

The case, heard in the Court of Protection, echoes that of Italian mother Alessandra Pacchieri, who spoke last week of her distress at not being allowed by the court to have a natural birth – and at her baby later being taken into care.

The 36-year-old woman at the centre of this latest case has three other children and cannot be named in order to protect her privacy. Mr Justice Peter Jackson said in his ruling that medics could sedate her and use “proportionate force” if necessary to deliver the baby safely.

Doctors told the judge the woman was suffering from “very severe mental health difficulties,” which led him to conclude that she might not be capable of making a life-saving decision if medics believed a Caesarean was needed in labour.

The woman has a scar from a Caesarean section during a previous birth that could rupture during labour and put her life at risk. In the event of that happening, doctors and the NHS trust involved needed permission from the court that they could intervene and perform a Caesarean section.

The woman is already 36 weeks pregnant and the judge made the ruling on the grounds that it was best to plan ahead for the worst eventuality.

Vikram Sachdeva, the lawyer representing the NHS trust, told the judge that the woman was suffering from paranoid schizophrenia. He said it was not a case about “foisting a Caesarean section on an unwilling patient” but about deciding what was in the woman’s best medical interests.

Mr Justice Jackson heard the case in open court but said reporters could not identify the woman or the NHS trust, because that might risk her identity becoming known. He made the decision after hearing from a court-appointed-lawyer known as the Official Solicitor, representing the woman – as well as a lawyer representing the trust and the doctors involved.

The lawyer representing the mother said doctors were trying to find the “least restrictive option”.

Mr Justice Jackson made a clear ruling that allowing doctors to operate against the woman’s wishes if necessary was in her best interests. He said: “The proposal that the trust make offers the best chance for a secure labour and delivery.”

The Court of Protection case was heard in the Royal Courts of Justice in London.

Register for free to continue reading

Registration is a free and easy way to support our truly independent journalism

By registering, you will also enjoy limited access to Premium articles, exclusive newsletters, commenting, and virtual events with our leading journalists

Please enter a valid email
Please enter a valid email
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number
Please enter your first name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
Please enter your last name
Special characters aren’t allowed
Please enter a name between 1 and 40 characters
You must be over 18 years old to register
You must be over 18 years old to register
Opt-out-policy
You can opt-out at any time by signing in to your account to manage your preferences. Each email has a link to unsubscribe.

Already have an account? sign in

By clicking ‘Register’ you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use, Cookie policy and Privacy notice.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy policy and Terms of service apply.

Join our new commenting forum

Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies

Comments

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in