I dont think that refusing the sterilisation originally was wrong btw. The doctor had to be sure that she was requesting it with a full understanding of what it meant, and with good reason
I know, it was the correct decision based on her circumstances at that point. I think her age at the time (26) contributed to the decision plus, of course, nobody knew that she would go on to have 5 more children who would all be removed from her. Nobody could have predicted the medical complications she would face in later life.
To me the irony was that, from reading the judgement, it sounds as though it was the one thing she was actually consistent about for quite some time - well over a year - unlike her 'chop & change' attitude to subsequent forms of contraception.
ii) On 18 February 2003, at a GP appointment, DD expressed the wish to be
sterilised;
iii) On 3 September 2003, at a follow-up appointment, DD repeated her wish to be sterilised, although her partner did not agree;
iv) On 2 December 2003, at a further follow-up appointment, DD again expressed a wish to be sterilised;
v) On 18 May 2004, DD re-attended the clinic. Again she expressed her wish to be sterilised, stating that she and her partner were determined not to have any more children; she was referred for a consultation, although it was noted that she was then only 26 years old;