The High Court of England and Wales has held that it is in the best interests of a man suffering from a severe learning difficulty to have a vasectomy. The man, known only as DE, has a mental age of between 6 and 9. After years of effort from his parents and social workers, he has been able to live with some degree of autonomy. He formed a long-term relationship with a woman, PQ, who also has learning difficulties. In 2009, PQ gave birth to a boy who has since been raised by his maternal grandmother.
Following the birth of their son, measures were taken to prevent another pregnancy. As DE does not have capacity to use contraceptives, he was supervised at all times. This severely limited his independence and put an extreme strain on his relationship with PQ. DE enjoys playing with his son for short periods of time but does not assume parental responsibilities. He has made it clear that he does not want any further children. The authorities have also indicated that any future children would be taken into care.
Mrs Justice Eleanor King granted an order that the vasectomy take place, saying that it was “overwhelmingly in DE’s best interests to have a vasectomy”. She also noted the extremely negative consequences of an unwanted pregnancy on DE’s life including intrusive supervision, restricted independence and a strain on his relationship with PQ. However, the judgment emphasised the extremity of the facts of the case stating, "the court does not make such an order lightly, conscious as it is that for the court to make an order permitting the lifelong removal of a person’s fertility for non-medical reasons requires strong justification."
Beverley Dawkins, policy manager at Mencap, a charity representing individuals with learning disabilities, said “We welcome the emphasis placed on the fact that this is an exceptional case and should not be seen as a green light for other applications for sterilisation in respect of people with a learning disability.”
Click here to read the case in full.
Click here to read an article on the UK Human Rights Blog about the case.
Bulletin readers may recall that the Irish High Court considered the compatibility of Irish mental health legislation with the Constitution and the European Convention on Human Rights in December 2012. The case concerned non-consensual medical treatment of an involuntary patient. The judge ruled that the treatment did not violate the ECHR or the Constitution as adequate safeguards were in place. The judge did however acknowledge that the plaintiff had a right to assisted decision-making procedures and to an independent review.