View source for DH NHS Foundation Trust v PS (2010) EWHC 1217 (Fam)

''(1) It was in PS's best interests to undergo a hysterectomy, and removal of the fallopian tubes and ovaries, in order to treat her endometrial cancer. (2) If, given her hospital and needle phobia, sedation or force were necessary to convey her to hospital, then that would be in her best interests. (3) It would be necessary to detain her in hospital for post-operative recovery; as it was in her best interests to have the operation, it was in her best interests to recover appropriately from it. In the circumstances, the court authorised the deprivation of liberty and it was unnecessary to invoke the DOL Safeguards.''

==Note==
The judgment is perhaps slightly ambiguous re point (3) above. It was not the case that the judge thought it unnecessary for the DOL Safeguards to be invoked ''merely'' because deprivation of liberty would be in PS's best interests. The reason was that the deprivation would be for a limited duration and it was simpler for the court to authorise the deprivation of liberty. (Thanks to Alex Ruck Keene of 39 Essex Street, whose colleague Parishil Patel was instructed by the OS, for this clarification.)

==Official summary==
{{COP2010|7}}

==Citations==
[2010] EWHC 1217 (Fam), [2010] Fam Law 927, [2010] 2 FLR 1236, [2010] Med LR 320, (2010) 116 BMLR 142

Duplicate Bailii citation number: [2010] EWHC 1217 (COP)

==External link==
{{#bailii:[2010] EWHC 1217 (Fam)}}

[http://www.pressassociation.com/component/pafeeds/2010/05/26/judge_backs_use_of_force_on_patient Press Association, 'Judge backs use of force on patient' (26/5/11)]

[[Category:Best interests]]
[[Category:Brief summary]]
[[Category:Transcript]]
[[Category:2010 cases]]