Sterilisation ruling overturned

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss overturned the High Court ruling

A mother's attempt to have her mentally disabled daughter sterilised has been blocked by the Court of Appeal.

The High Court had accepted the mother's argument that it would be a disaster for her daughter if she became pregnant.

But Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss, President of the High Court Family Division, on Thursday overturned the ruling that doctors could lawfully carry out a hysterectomy on the 29-year-old woman, who was unable to consent to it herself.

The patient has the right, if she cannot herself choose, not to have drastic surgery imposed upon her

Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss

Dame Elizabeth said in her judgement: "The patient has the right, if she cannot herself choose, not to have drastic surgery imposed upon her unless or until it has been demonstrated that it is in her best interests."

The Official Solicitor Laurence Oates, representing the woman who can only be identified as "S", challenged Mr Justice Wall's High Court ruling that the operation could go ahead.

The High Court judge decided that the woman needed treatment to stop her periods and totally end the risk of pregnancy.

Severe learning difficulties

S has severe learning difficulties, with very limited speech, and cannot live on her own in the community.

She has a younger sister of normal intelligence and a brother with similar problems to her own who lives in sheltered accommodation.

It is likely that S will have to follow her brother into sheltered accommodation.

Dame Elizabeth said that S was "an extremely attractive girl" and accepted that if she goes into a local authority home there is a risk that she might move unsupervised in mixed circles and might "either form a close emotional relationship or be the victim of a sexual assault with the possibility of a pregnancy."

Dame Elizabeth said: "I have considerable sympathy for the mother in this case.

"She has the responsibility for her daughter and she is doing her best to make the best provision for S's future having regard to the fact that she will not be able to look after her for much longer.

"But the understandable concerns of a caring mother and the problems of dealing with S during her menstrual periods do not, on the facts of this case, tilt the balance towards major irreversible surgery for therapeutic reasons when they are unsupported by any gynaecological, psychological or other medical evidence."

She recommended that S should be fitted with a coil.

Sterilisation cannot be in a person's best interest if based on social rather than health grounds

Richard Kramer, Mencap

Richard Kramer, of charity Mencap, said the judgement was "clearly in the best interests" of the daughter.

He said: "Her rights are paramount and it would have been wrong to impose such invasive treatment.

"The sterilisation issue raises particularly sensitive and moral questions.

"However, Mencap believe that sterilisation cannot be in a person's best interest if based on social rather than health grounds."