View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

Re S (Adult
Patient:
Sterilisation)
[2001] Fam 15
(CA)
Lower court
reported as:
SL (Adult
Patient)
(medical
treatment)
[2000] 1 FCR
361
England
Re Z (medical
treatment:
hysterectomy)
[2000] 1 FCR
274, [2000] 1
FLR 523,
[2000] Fam
Law 321
Also reported
as; Re ZM and
OS [2000] 1
FLR
England
Mother Distressed by her
menstrual periods and
had a phobia about
hospitals.
Mother
29
Patient suffering
extremely heavy and
painful menstrual
periods - Future risk of
pregnancy.
19
Declined
hysterectomy.
Allowed insertion
of mirena coil as
least restrictive
option
Hysterectomy
allowed on Z’s
best interests.
‘The less invasive procedure should
be adopted first’.
‘Periods should cease altogether.’
Serve no useful purpose
reproductively or emotionally.
Severe burden.
Bring nothing but misery, pain and
discomfort.
Quality of life can be improved.
Protection from pregnancy.
Analysis of link between best
interests and bolam tests.
Main gynaecologist = female.
In Re E [1991]
In Re D [1976] confirmed right of patient
not to be irreversibly interfered with except
for good reason
In Re LC [1997]
In Re ZM & OS [2000] confirmed that the
risk of pregnancy must be real rather than
fanciful.
Frenchay [1994] both reject Bolam test as
absolute determinant in deciding patients’
best interests.
In Re A [2000] Best interests encompass
medical social and all other welfare issues.
In Re GF [1992] Requirements set out in
GF…. Should be cautiously interpreted and
applied.
Re F [1990] On BI test can be applied to
adults who lack capacity.
Re W [1993] Re X [1999].
Claimed both these cases showed
consistent application of BI test for
allowing sterilisation since Re F.
235