- GMC ?1997)Serious Communicable Diseases.General Medical Council ,London.
- See generally M. Gunn ?1994) The meaning of incapacity. 2 Med LR 8.
- Grubb ?1994) 2 Med LR1.
10.Mental Incapacity?1995) Law Commission Report 231. The Stationery Office ,London. - ?1997) Cm 3803.
- ?1999) Cm 4465. McHale ,J.V. ?1998) Mental Incapacity: some proposals for legislative
reform.Journal of Medical Ethics,24 ,322. - Delany ,L. ?1998) Responsibility and Capacity.Health Care Risk Report,7 ,70.
- SeeRv.Brown[1993] 2 All ER 75.
- Prohibition of Female Circumcision Act 1985 section 1.
- SeeBraveryv.Bravery[1954] 1 WLR 1169.
- This was suggested by Lord Edmund Davies in a statement made extra judicially ± see
?1969)Proc. Roy. Soc. Med. ,62 ,633±4. - See Fox ,M. & McHale ,J. ?1998) Xenotransplantation 6 Med LR 42.
- Skegg ,P.D.G. ?1984)Law, Ethics and Medicine,p. 32. Clarendon Press ,London.
- See the comments of Mr Justice Bristow inChattertonv.Gersonand M. Brazier ?1987)
Patient autonomy and consent to treatment: the role of the law.Legal Studies,7 ,169. - See discussion in Wicks ,E. ?2001) The right to refuse medical treatment under the
European Convention on Human Rights. 8 Med LR 17. - See for exampleRe L medical treatment; Gillick competency)[1998] 2 FLR 810.
- See Grubb ?1993) Commentary. 1 Med LR 92.
- See furtherCv.S[1988] QB 135 andPatonv.British Pregnancy Advisory Service[1978] 2
All ER 987. - See further Kennedy ,I. ?1990) A woman and her unborn child; rights and responsi-
bilities. In P. Byrne ?ed)Ethics and Law in Health Care and Research.John Wiley ,Chi-
chester. - See discussion in Kennedy ,I. & Grubb ,A. ?2000)Medical Law.Oxford University
Press ,Oxford. - InACitself an enforced caesarean was rejected. The court did indicate that they may be
used in suitable cases and mentioned a court decision very similar toRe S.However,
they did not express an opinion on that case. - RCOG ?1994)AConsideration of the Law and Ethics in Relation to Court-Authorised
Obstetric Interventionsand see also the revisions in ?RCOG 1996)Supplement to a
Consideration of the Law and Ethics in Relation to Court-Authorised Obstetric Interventions. - It was suggested that anaesthetic should be given through a mask ,but when the risks of
this procedure ,namely that there was a possibility that a patient on whom this pro-
cedure is used may regurgitate and inhale the contents of the stomach ,were explained
to her ,consent was refused. - Reference was made to the statement of Lord Justice Goff inCollinsv.Wilcock[1984] 1
WLR 1172 as approved inRe F[1990] 1 AC 1 ,the judgment of Lord Templeman in
Sidawayv.Bethlem Hospital Governors[1985] AC 871 at pp. 904±5 and Lord Donaldson
inRe T an adult refusal to consent to medical treatment)[1992] 4 All ER 649 CA. - [1997] FLR 426 at pp. 436±7.
- [1997] FLR 437.
- [1997] FLR 438.
- Kennedy ,I. ?1990) A woman and her unborn child: rights and responsibilities. In P.
Byrne ?ed.)Ethics and Law in Health Care and Research.John Wiley ,Chichester. - SeeBolamv.Friern Hospital Management Company[1957] 2 All ER 118.
- See for example Fennel ,P. ?1990) Inscribing Paternalism in Law: Consent to Treatment
and Mental DisorderJournal of Law and Society,29. - See for example Grubb ,A. & Pearl ,D. ?1989) Sterilisation ± courts and doctors as
Consent and the Capable Adult Patient 119