T v. T.

Family Division
{"title":"T v. T.","authors":"Family Division","doi":"10.25291/vr/1936-vlr-293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n In this English case, the defendant was a pregnant, 19-year-old, severely mentally handicapped epileptic. Her mother undertook to have the pregnancy terminated and her daughter sterilized. Because doctors would not operate without the court's protection, the mother sought a declaration to permit the termination and sterilization without her daughter's consent. The Family Division of the High Court found no statutory provision allowing third party consent to be given under these circumstances. Instead, given the urgency of the case, the lack of contraceptive alternatives, and the impossibility of the defendant's being able to consent, the court ruled that the residual parens patriae jurisdiction of the Crown gave the court suitable power to adjudicate. The court granted the declaration, reasoning that medical advisors should do what the urgency of the situation demanded.\n","PeriodicalId":82910,"journal":{"name":"The all England law reports","volume":"[1988] 1 1","pages":"613-25"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"1987-07-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"15","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The all England law reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25291/vr/1936-vlr-293","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 15

Abstract

In this English case, the defendant was a pregnant, 19-year-old, severely mentally handicapped epileptic. Her mother undertook to have the pregnancy terminated and her daughter sterilized. Because doctors would not operate without the court's protection, the mother sought a declaration to permit the termination and sterilization without her daughter's consent. The Family Division of the High Court found no statutory provision allowing third party consent to be given under these circumstances. Instead, given the urgency of the case, the lack of contraceptive alternatives, and the impossibility of the defendant's being able to consent, the court ruled that the residual parens patriae jurisdiction of the Crown gave the court suitable power to adjudicate. The court granted the declaration, reasoning that medical advisors should do what the urgency of the situation demanded.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
电视,电视。
在这个英国案件中,被告是一名19岁的孕妇,患有严重的精神残疾癫痫。她的母亲答应终止妊娠,并为她的女儿绝育。由于医生在没有法院保护的情况下不会进行手术,这位母亲寻求一份声明,允许在未经女儿同意的情况下终止手术和绝育。高等法院家事科认为,没有法律条文容许在这种情况下给予第三者同意。相反,考虑到案件的紧迫性、缺乏替代避孕措施以及被告不可能表示同意,法院裁定,王室的剩余父母管辖权赋予法院适当的裁决权力。法院批准了该声明,理由是医疗顾问应该按照情况的紧急程度行事。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
R (on the application of Quintavalle) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. R (on the application of Quintavalle) v Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. Evans v. Amicus Healthcare Ltd; Hadley v. Midland Fertility Ltd. Re R (a Child). R (on the application of Quintavalle) v Secretary of State for Health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1