Her own mother and social worker think the pregnancy should continue, I would imagine they know her better than a judge.
No, not the social worker. This is a social worker appointed to represent her interests, so s/he doesn't put forward personal views. It appears to be only her mother who thinks this, and given her religion she may not have her daughter's interests at the forefront.
She does not need to make a choice.
No, a choice has to be made, because clinicians who have all the facts say it will be damaging to her to continue the pregnancy.
The law should not be able to step in and alter the lives of people, even vulnerable people, in this way, IMHO.
Really? Even when vulnerable people are unable to make decisions in their own best interests are being exploited and/or putting their lives in danger? How far should this go? After all, the law steps in on behalf of children and alters their lives every day.
"So she should be thrown out just after having a baby she can’t be around because one day she might need to move?" No, of course not, don't put words into my mouth!
But that would be the consequence of this woman giving birth and her mother looking after the baby as she apparently wants to.
"The law is there to protect vulnerable adults." then why isn't 'the law' sterilizing everyone who they deem should not get pregnant
Come on this isn't difficult. Because, amongst other matters, there are other means of avoiding pregnancy.
"They have capacity to make an informed choice." actually, we just assume everyone does. But we don't know. There may be a whole raft of women out there getting pregnant and having babies who do not have the full capacity you or I have.
No, that argument just doesn't work. The law is never going to get involved in this way unless and until someone is shown to lack capacity in relation to the decision in question. It's not a matter of having the full capacity you or I have, it's a matter of all concerned being sure that the person in question has no capacity at all.
I am saying her mum may know her daughter better than these other 'professions'. She may know how she would cope with both eventualities.
Yet people who know the patient and know much more about her mental health say otherwise. Why should our uninformed speculation take precedence?
It's interesting that we haven't heard about any appeal which would be expedited in a case like this.
The judge gas presumed to know the future of a young vulnerable adult, it seems an all along precedent to set. Truely appalling.
No, she's made the best decision she can out of a number of bad options and on the basis of the evidence in front of her. She has no choice other than to do so, that is the function of the Court of Protection - if there is any precedent, it was set decades ago and has been accepted ever since.
Take a fairly common situation with which the court deals: a vulnerable adult is in the care of a relative who is neglecting her and exploiting her. All concerned, apart from the relative, say they see no prospect of this changing and it is harmful to the adult whose health is deteriorating and will continue to do so. The court is asked to make alternative orders for the patient's care and does so. Inevitably the judge is predicting the future: should they refuse to do so, leaving the patient where she is, and is "truly appalling" if they don't?