<p>
	A judge has decided that a mother-of-six who has learning disabilities can be sterilised in a UK case which he says raises &ldquo;ethical, legal and medical issues&rdquo; of the &ldquo;utmost gravity&rdquo;.</p>
<p>
	Mr Justice Cobb also ruled that social services staff and medics could force their way into the 36-year-old woman&rsquo;s home and restrain her if necessary.</p>
<p>
	And he said officials did not need to tell the woman &ndash; or her long-term partner - when she would be sterilised</p>
<p>
	Detail of his decision emerged today in a written ruling following a hearing in the Court of Protection &ndash; where issues relating to sick and vulnerable people are analysed &ndash; in London.</p>
<p>
	Health authority and social services bosses had asked Mr Justice Cobb to authorise forced entry, &rdquo;necessary restraint&rdquo; and sterilisation at a hearing in the Court of Protection &ndash; where issues relating to sick and vulnerable people are examined &ndash; in London.</p>
<p>
	They said such moves were in the best interests of the woman.</p>
<p>
	The judge did not identify anyone involved.</p>
<p>
	Specialists had told how the woman had physical health problems which could put her life in danger if she became pregnant again.</p>
<p>
	Officials acknowledged that the rulings they wanted were &rdquo;extraordinary&rdquo; but said the woman&rsquo;s health &ndash; and life &ndash; could be at &rdquo;grave&rdquo; risk if action was not taken.</p>
<p>
	Mr Justice Cobb today granted their applications.</p>
<p>
	The judge described the case as &ldquo;exceptional&rdquo; and said the circumstances were &ldquo;extreme&rdquo;.</p>
<p>
	He said the case was not about eugenics &ndash; and said a further pregnancy could threaten the woman&rsquo;s life.</p>
<p>
	The judge was told that the woman&rsquo;s children had been taken from her care.</p>
<p>
	Lawyers appointed by the court to represent her interests had backed the plan put forward by health and social services officials and agreed that the woman &rdquo;lacks capacity&rdquo; because her mind is &rdquo;impaired&rdquo;.</p>
<p>
	Barrister John McKendrick, who represented health authority and council officials involved in the case, had told the judge that the nature of the rulings sought was &rdquo;extraordinary&rdquo; and involved significant interference with the woman&rsquo;s basic human rights. But he said the moves were necessary.</p>
<p>
	And barrister Michael Horne, who represented the interests of the woman, said sterilisation was &rdquo;therapeutic&rdquo; and the most effective way of mitigating &rdquo;grave risks&rdquo; to the woman&rsquo;s health and life.</p>
<p>
	Mr Justice Cobb was told that the woman &ndash; and her partner &ndash; had repeatedly refused to co-operate or engage with medical and social services staff and a legal representative.</p>
<p>
	She had said she wanted to be &rdquo;left alone&rdquo;.</p>
<p>
	The judge had seen evidence from psychiatrists, an obstetrician and gynaecologist as well as social workers.</p>
<p>
	Reports contained detail of a number of gynaecological problems which specialists said would pose a grave risk to the woman&#39;s health if she became pregnant again.</p>
<p>
	And he was told of difficulties professionals had faced in persuading the woman to use contraception and in administering contraception.</p>
<p>
	Mr Justice Cobb said last year he had authorised the administration of a contraceptive injection and medics had entered her home by force. The judge said the woman had been &ldquo;so distressed&rdquo; that he said it was no longer &ldquo;feasible&rdquo; to continue with injections.</p>
<p>
	&ldquo;The ethical, legal and medical issues arising here are self-evidently of the utmost gravity, engaging, and profoundly impacting upon (the woman&rsquo;s) personal autonomy, privacy, bodily integrity, and reproductive rights,&rdquo; said Mr Justice Cobb in a written ruling published today.</p>
<p>
	&ldquo;This is, in my judgment, an exceptional case on its facts; the applicants seek a range of relief which is likely to arise only in the most extreme circumstances.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
	The judge said the woman had a history of concealing or attempting to conceal pregnancies from health professionals.</p>
<p>
	And he added: &ldquo;This case is not about eugenics. This outcome has been driven by the bleak yet undisputed evidence that a further pregnancy would be a significantly life-threatening event for (the woman).</p>
<p>
	&ldquo;The applicants&rsquo; obstetric, gynaecological and contraceptive experts strongly recommend this treatment for (the woman), jointly expressing themselves in these stark terms: &rsquo;The risk to (the woman) of a future pregnancy, especially if concealed, is highly likely to lead to her death&rsquo;.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
	Mr Justice Cobb declared that the woman lacked the mental capacity to make decisions regarding contraception.</p>
<p>
	The judge concluded that &ldquo;therapeutic sterilisation&rdquo; would be lawful and in the woman&rsquo;s best interests.</p>
<p>
	He authorised medics and social services staff to: &ldquo;Remove (the woman) from her home and take steps to convey her to hospital for the purposes of the sterilisation procedure.&rdquo;</p>
<p>
	And he said &ldquo;necessary and proportionate steps&rdquo; could include &ldquo;forced entry and necessary restraint&rdquo;.</p>
<p>
	<a href="http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/court-approves-forced-sterilisation-of-mum-of-six-with-learning-difficulties-660912.html">http://www.breakingnews.ie/world/court-approves-forced-sterilisation-of-mum-of-six-with-learning-difficulties-660912.html</a></p>
