Related Experiment Video
Updated: Apr 20, 2026

External Cephalic Version: Is it an Effective and Safe Procedure?
Published on: June 6, 2020
Mama mia! Serious shortcomings with another '(en) forced' caesarean section case Re AA [2012] EWHC 4378 (COP)
1School of Law and Social Justice, University of Liverpool, Eleanor Rathbone Building, Bedford Street South, L69 7ZA, UK hsewalms@liv.ac.uk.
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.
More Related Videos
04:33Spinal Hernia Repair and Cauda Equina Repositioning After Lumbar Decompression under Three-Dimensional Microscopy: A Case Report and Literature Review
Published on: November 8, 2024
05:40Continuous Telemetric In Utero Tracheal Pressure Measurements in Fetal Lambs
Published on: December 22, 2023