View/Open - Scholarly Commons Home

Re GF
Medical
Treatment
[1992] 1 FLR
293, 7 BMLR
135
England
Re E (A
Minor)
(Medical
Treatment)
[1991] 2 FLR
585, [1992]
Fam Law 15, 7
BMLR 117
England
Mother Excessively heavy
periods which she was
unable to deal with.
Incidental effect of
sterilisation, object
though essentially
therapeutic.
Official
solicitor on
behalf of
parents.
29
E suffered from a
menstrual condition for
which the only
effective treatment was
a hysterectomy.
Required for
therapeutic reasons not
with aim of
sterilisation.
17
Allowed
hysterectomy for
therapeutic
reasons.
Hysterectomy
allowed for
therapeutic
reasons.
Heavy periods
Unable to take care of menstrual
hygiene and sanitary care
Dreads having periods and
embarrassed and humiliated by
experience
No practicable less intrusive means
Necessary for therapeutic purposes.
Application for heavy periods, not
for sterilisation.
Appendix C: Table of sterilisation and hysterectomy cases not analysed.
Laid out 3 caveats for
performing such an operation
without seeking courts
guidance.
Ruled that the consent of the
court not required as deemed
to be therapeutic.
Cases not analysed Best interests? Reason not analysed
Re H (EM)[1995]130 Sask R 281
Canada
Secretary, Department Of Health and Community Services v JMB and SMB
[1992] 15 Fam LR 392
Appeal in high court following decision; Re Marion [1992] 14 Fam LR 427
Australia
Yes
Menstruation resulted in seriously
disturbed behaviours, ‘girl would
never understand the process’.
No
No precedent.
Re F [1990]
UNREPORTED Publication of judgement restricted. Unknown why.
Allowed endometrial ablation on the grounds that it was therapeutic. Declined
sterilisation on the grounds that it has no therapeutic purpose.
All cases establishing lawfulness of parents consenting on behalf of Marion and
whether court can consent on her behalf – see above for whether hysterectomy in
best interests.
236