Court of Appeal judges rule doctors must not abort vulnerable woman’s baby

Doctors must not be allowed to perform an abortion on a pregnant mentally-ill woman, Court of Appeal judges have ruled.

A judge on Friday concluded that a pregnancy termination was in the woman’s best interests.

Mrs Justice Lieven had analysed evidence at a hearing in the Court of Protection, where issues relating to people who lack the mental capacity to make decisions are considered, in London.

But three appeal judges on Monday over-ruled that decision after the woman’s mother, a former midwife, mounted a challenge.

Lord Justice McCombe, Lady Justice King and Lord Justice Peter Jackson had considered the challenge at a Court of Appeal hearing in London.

They said they would give reasons for their decision at a later date.

Lawyers said they thought the circumstances of the case were unique.

Bosses at an NHS hospital trust responsible for the woman’s care had asked Mrs Justice Lieven to let doctors perform an abortion.

Three specialists, an obstetrician and two psychiatrists, said a termination was the best option because of the risk to the woman’s psychiatric health if pregnancy continued.

They said the woman’s daughter’s behaviour could pose a risk to a baby.

Specialists also said taking a baby from the woman would cause greater psychiatric harm than terminating the pregnancy.

The woman’s mother was against termination and said she could care for the child.

A social worker who works with the woman said the pregnancy should continue.

Lawyers who represented the woman also said she should be allowed to give birth.

But Mrs Justice Lieven said a balance of evidence showed that termination was the best option.

She said she had to make an “enormous” decision on the basis of what was in the woman’s best interests – not on “society’s views of termination”.

Barristers John McKendrick QC and Victoria Butler-Cole QC, who represented the woman’s mother at Monday’s appeal hearing, argued that Mrs Justice Lieven’s decision was wrong.

Mr McKendrick told appeal judges that Mrs Justice Lieven’s analysis of what was in the woman’s best interests was flawed.

He complained that Mrs Justice Lieven had speculated about what would happen if the pregnancy continued, and added: “There is a clear overall view of a young woman who wishes to have a baby.”

The woman had been independently represented by staff from the office of the Official Solicitor, who help mentally ill people caught up in litigation.

Barrister Katie Gollop QC, who led her legal team, also argued that Mrs Justice Lieven’s decision was wrong.

She told appeal judges how evidence showed that the woman was “highly adaptable” and “flexible”.

Copyright (c) Press Association Ltd. 2019, All Rights Reserved.