5 Filters

Agoraphobic mum-to-be can be forced to hospital for birth, court rules

#1

Agoraphobic mum-to-be can be forced to hospital for birth, court rules

Medics can use force to take a pregnant woman who has agoraphobia to hospital to give birth, a judge has ruled.

The 21-year-old has an “overwhelming” fear of leaving her home, the Court of Protection in London heard.

She wants a home birth - unless there is an emergency. But the NHS wants her to have the baby in a “planned way” in hospital, due to the increased risks if she gives birth at home.

Judge Mr Justice Holman said his ruling was in the woman’s best interests.

He concluded that “proportionate” force could be used by specially-trained staff if she refused to leave home on a specified day near her due date.

The woman, who the judge said lived “far from London”, has barely left home in four years and had her scan at home.

The judge said the woman’s partner and mother thought she should give birth in hospital.

The woman and the NHS trust cannot be named for legal reasons.

‘Potential risks’

Mr Justice Holman said evidence showed there was a risk there could be a “catastrophe” if she had a home birth.

“I think you should go to hospital and have this baby,” he told the woman and her partner who watched on video link.

“It will avoid potential risks and disaster if something goes wrong. I think it is better than some awful rush job in the middle of the night.”

He added: “I know it will be an ordeal for you.”

Mr Justice Holman concluded that the woman’s agoraphobia meant that she did not have the mental capacity to make decisions about the birth of her baby.

Agoraphobia is a condition which may include fears of leaving a “safe” place, being left alone or in a situation where sufferers feel trapped.

1 Like
#2

Hi @spike , one can easily envision the next step in the covid jab plan-
“ Mr Justice X concluded that the woman’s covid-jab-phobia meant that she did not have the mental capacity to make decisions about her own body so proportionate force can be used by Our NHS to jab her”

It may be that there is something we don’t know that has led parent and partner to support this decision but it looks like the usual medical-legal fascism… :frowning_face:

cheers

1 Like
#3

Home birth challenges the paradigm of medicalizing everything. But that is all.

However the shitty Baa Baa Cee has misrepresented the facts of the case. See

http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCOP/2021/18.html

And, in particular, the postscript:

  1. Ahead of this judgment being formally handed down, the court was informed that GH had given birth to a healthy baby boy. In the event, following the out of hours hearing and the decision of the court, GH’s labour began to progress quickly and she delivered her son at home before it was possible to execute the arrangements authorised by the court regarding her transport to hospital for obstetric and postnatal treatment.
#4

I agree that it looks like that and would have had said the same. I was part way through a reply saying something similar, but…

1 Like
#5

Great upshot! New mum, in cahoots with Mam Gaia, outran the interferers, and trashed their forced-birth plans! Hah!

1 Like
#6

Thanks for the link @Kieran_Telo .
It seems to me that if the “diagnostic” element of the case determines the person’s mind is impaired then you can only retain your power over your own body if you are able to make specific decisions :

“3 Inability to make decisions
(1) For the purposes of section 2, a person is unable to make a decision for himself if he is unable—
(a) to understand the information relevant to the decision,
(b) to retain that information,
(c) to use or weigh that information as part of the process of making the decision, or
(d) to communicate his decision (whether by talking, using sign language or any other means).”

  • this essentially means for most people that where the information is long or complicated in a highly stressed situation they will not be deemed to be able to make a decision - right or wrong.

So if the medics deem you to be mentally impaired using their “diagnostic” tool box - you’re fxxxed! Unless of course Mother Nature objects as RG says.

cheers

#7

That is the gist of it I’m afraid. I think the balance of risks was not straightforward, and probably seldom is, but in this case the outcome rather undermines the reasoning used. I expect many of us will remember the cases that have involved Jehovah’s Witnesses being found to have endangered the lives of dependents due to deeply held beliefs about bodily sanctity, with decisions taken out of their hands by the experts. The latter have a strong belief in their own judgement and the problem ultimately is whose beliefs get to tip the balance…

If I had any faith in the process I’d suggest the Baa Baa Cee Fact-Check their highly misleading story… it shores up the Trust Science narrative though, innit.

2 Likes