title: Mama mia! Serious shortcomings with another '(en) forced' caesarean section case Re AA [2012] EWHC 4378 (COP).
abstract: Caesarean sections have often been authorised by finding that the patient lacks capacity. This commentary discusses one of the latest enforced caesarean cases to come before the Court of Protection (CoP), the judgment of Re AA [2012] EWHC 4378 (COP), delivered by Mostyn J. Two questions that emerge from the judgment will be discussed. First, whether Re AA confirms that the 'best interests' framework within the Mental Capacity Act 2005 (MCA) is an effective tool for maternal compliance. Second, whether capacity is thoroughly tested in cases involving invasive obstetric surgery. The subsequent High Court judgment, Great Western Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v AA & Ors [2014] EWHC 132 (Fam), which also involved obstetric treatment and maternal mental health, will be used to see whether any lessons have been learnt from Re AA.
authors.affiliation: School of Law and Social Justice, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, L69 7ZA, UK hsewalms@liv.ac.uk.
authors.forename: Emma
authors.initials: E
authors.lastname: Walmsley
mesh_terms: D000328:Adult; D001714:Bipolar Disorder / Q000523:psychology*; D002585:Cesarean Section / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D000066491:Clinical Decision-Making / Q000941:ethics; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D007558:Italy; D016743:Mental Competency / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D028701:Patient Rights / Q000331:legislation & jurisprudence*; D011247:Pregnancy; D006113:United Kingdom
keywords: Best interests; Caesarean; Capacity; Pregnancy; Treatment