View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

Re Marion (No
2) [1992] 17
FamLR
Australia
See above.
This case
deciding
whether
hysterectomy
in Marion’s
best interests.
In Re
Elizabeth
[1989] 13 Fam
LR 47
Australia
In Re S [1989]
13 Fam LR
660
Australia
Parents Purpose of
hysterectomy;
Preventing pregnancy
and menstruation with
its psychological and
behavioural
consequences;
ovariectomy proposed
to stabilise hormonal
fluxes and eliminate
consequential stress
and behavioural
responses.
Restraining
order sought
against mother
by NSW
council officer
preventing
mother
consenting to
hysterectomy.
Injunction
against parents
to consent to
hysterectomy
on S’s behalf.
14
Epileptic – increased
risk of epileptic fits;
pain, fear,
dysmenhorrea and
dehydration triggering
fits of increasing
severity and frequency.
15
Could not cope with
hygiene aspects of
menstruation and risk
that S would become
pregnant.
12
Allowed
hysterectomy.
Hysterectomy
allowed.
Allowed
hysterectomy.
Prevent pregnancy – although
identified little risk of sexual abuse.
Prevent menstruation and
menstrual bleeding with
consequent psychological and
behavioural problems.
To stabilise and prevent hormonal
fluxes with consequential stress
and behavioural problems.
Fitted pre-menstrually.
Previously tried oral contraception.
Risk of increasing fits during
menstruation. Risk also of pain,
fear dysmenhorea, dehydration and
triggering of fits of increasing
severity and frequency.
“She shows no fear and will
happily go off with any man. She
has to be physically restrained from
chasing after men in public and
throwing her arms around them”.
Problematic masturbation.
Menstruation not yet commenced.
Real risk of pregnancy.
Could not cope with they hygiene
aspects involved in pregnancy.
Employed guidelines from Re
Jane to determine best
interests:
Lists relevant factors which
determine whether procedure
is in the persons best interests,
then applies it.
Brought by the advocacy
officer of the NSW council for
Intellectually Disabled, and
discusses whether these sorts
of groups should be involved.
Considered that legislation
from NSW allowed parents to
consent, and the consent of the
court was not also required.
Re Jane [1988]; the same judge from Re
Jane created the guidelines to be used in
such cases.
Re B [1987]; whether the court can
override the parents wishes.
Re Eve [1986]; consent by the court for
medical procedures.
Re Eve [1986] & Re F [1989] to establish
the distinction between therapeutic and
non-therapeutic hysterectomy or
sterilisation.
Re F [1989]; sterilisation is in a special
category of treatment to be considered by
the court.
Re Jane [1988] the welfare of the child is
paramount to the court.
Re F [1989]
Re a Teenager [1988]
Re Jane [1989]
Re Elizabeth [1989]
233