Agoraphobic mum-to-be forced to go to hospital for the birth

Capacity is decision specific

This really bothers me.

We don't know if she has a high risk pregnancy. It's hinted at but not stated.

This part:

'He concluded that "proportionate" force could be used by specially-trained staff if she refused to leave home on a specified day near her due date.'

What level of force is proportionate on a woman who is at full term? The fact he said that means that they know she will refuse. That if they try to what. Carry her out? Push her? She will struggle. So what the hell does that mean? That bothers me.

Also it's a specified day near her due date. I went 42+2. If they come and use proportionate force to take her. She could be in hosp for weeks. She will be extremely distressed. Obviously. How will they keep her there? Guard the room? And isn't that going to push her mental health over the edge potentially?

Why on earth don't they say. We'll come round and sedate you. Your family will come with you. You will have a C-section and we will keep you sedated and have someone come and look after you at home. You won't even remember leaving. Was that on the table? And resource-wise that's less than having a room which has to be watched and possibly managing a woman who is heavily pregnant and probably terrified, having a massive mental health episode.

The woman is let's face it likely to have a massive breakdown of some sort and assuming she can keep the baby it's hardly a great start to motherhood. That will cause issues.

Judges make awful decisions especially when it comes to women all the time. I find it interesting there's so much faith in the system being shown on the thread.

... being judged to lack capacity in one specific area and for courts to restrict agency on that basis is something of a slippery slope, surely?

No. Capacity isn't a monolith. You don't have it or not. The question is whether someone has the capacity to make a specific decision at a specific point in time in specific circumstances.

I don't follow your argument at all, @theThreeofWeevils. People are not detained under the Mental Health Act because they lack capacity, but because they have a severe mental illness, requiring inpatient treatment (or treatment on a community order). Capacity has nothing to do with it. You can have full capacity and still be 'sectioned'. Most patients detained under the MHA do have the capacity to make decisions about most medical care.

This woman apparently lacks capacity with regards to leaving the house, but not about other issues. The court has therefore ruled that she is unable to make decisions about the one area in which she lacks capacity. It's the very opposite of a slippery slope - it has the effect of protecting her right to make all decisions for which she has capacity, just not for the one issue for which she hasn't.

... being judged to lack capacity in one specific area and for courts to restrict agency on that basis is something of a slippery slope, surely?

Considering how ridiculously high the bar is set for sectioning someone, this seems something of an overreach by the court. If she doesn't have sufficient capacity to determine where and how she gives birth, then presumably she has no capacity to care for the baby either and it should be removed from her at birth in the interests of consistency for its own safety...

This is so sad for the poor woman and her partner. However if it's true the evidence shows there was a risk there could be a catastrophe if she had a home birth then they've obviously made the right decision. If that evidence isn't there it's barbaric but I can't believe a judge would make this decision lightly.

I can only assume that there is a backstory to which we are not privy. Home births are pretty routine for a low-risk birth, after all so there must be complications which increase the risk.

I can't imagine many women get scans at home, tbh.

Likely to be a significant back story here.

The reporting is very poor (and potentially very scaremongering). There simply isn't enough information here to have any kind of informed opinion, but legally, there must be some form of risk factor rendering a home birth as a risk.

If she hasn't left the house for four years (since the age of 17) she might very well find it difficult to raise a child, even with the support of her partner and mother.

A home birth in a low risk pregnancy has no "increased risk" compared to hospital birth. Probably there are factors either about the pregnancy or possibly the home environment which increase the risk, but they've reported it as though home birth in itself is some terribly risky irresposible decision, which it isn't!

Agree that the reporting is poor. The court would not be preventing her from having a home birth if it was safe for her to do so, because that could not be in her best interests. The problem may be that she has declined antenatal care, so the midwives won't know if she is low-risk or not.

The pregnancy must be high risk or they wouldn’t be pushing her to go to the hospital. In that case, the risk to the baby definitely has to be taken into account.
I would also be concerned about the mother’s capability to take the baby to GP appts, vaccinations etc. Also what if the baby was poorly? I had to take my DD up to A&E quite a few times in her first couple of years.

What a shame. I wish we knew a little more information, but there will be a reason for that.

I would question, though, that if the woman has been judged "lacking in the mental capacity to decide where to give birth" - could it be reasonably argued that she lacks the mental capacity to consent to unprotected sex and the consequences of that?

Is this more than "just" agoraphobia.

"Mr Justice Holman said evidence showed there was a risk there could be a "catastrophe" if she had a home birth."
This quote tells us that there is much more than is being reported. It wouldn't have been a decision taken lightly, and it doesn't sound as though this is a Giliad thing. Also they probably don't have the resources to have the medical team they think they will need on standby to go to the ladies home.

There's obviously more to this.

I can also see that in an emergency situation, her fear of leaving the house could make things a lot lot worse.

I suppose a more controlled environment would be better for mother and baby.

This is exceptionally rare. There is absolutely no power to force a woman who does have mental capacity to do this, even if the baby will be placed at extreme risk or even through the mother’s decisions.

There almost definitely is some medical background which is being withheld due to confidentiality, in which case it's really shit reporting, making it sound like she's being silly and obstinate, rather than somebody in need of compassion.

Poor woman. And poor baby. Wonder why she thought getting pg was a good idea if she can't leave her home? Getting treatment for her agoraphobia first would have been more sensible.

I agree with the judge. Imagine if she had a home birth and things went terribly wrong? Who would get the blame?

I would have to question the risk to her and the baby if taken to the hospital by force.

We don't know what the evidence of catastrophic birth risk is. There may be some crucial medical info here.

I also don't understand how she will be able to bring up a child without ever leaving the house.