The recent judgment in Oxford University NHS Foundation Trust v AX offers important guidance on the intersection of mental health law, maternity care, and decision-making capacity. It’s a case that prompts careful thought for both healthcare providers and legal practitioners working with vulnerable individuals.
A complex clinical and legal landscape
AX, a 30-year-old woman, was 38 weeks pregnant when proceedings were initiated. She had a long-standing psychiatric history, including severe depression with psychotic features and elective mutism. Detained under section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983, AX was deemed incapable of engaging with maternity professionals. Her care was further complicated by medical risk factors including gestational diabetes and a previous C-section.
Initially, AX had expressed preferences about her birthing plan, including a potential C-section. But as her condition worsened, her capacity to make informed choices declined. The Trust, supported by AX’s mother and the Official Solicitor, sought declarations that AX lacked decision-making capacity and that a planned C-section was in her best interests.
Legal framework in action
The Court of Protection’s analysis followed the Mental Capacity Act 2005, applying both the diagnostic and functional tests:
- Was AX’s impaired mental state preventing her from making informed decisions?
- Could she understand, retain, and weigh information about her care, or communicate her wishes?
A key aspect of the Court’s best interests analysis (under section 4 MCA 2005) was the recognition of AX’s earlier preferences when she appeared capacitous. The judgment also revisited Paton v British Pregnancy Advisory Service Trustees [1979], affirming that while a foetus has no legal rights until birth, its welfare may influence best interests considerations.
Outcome and wider implications
Clinical evidence confirmed AX’s lack of capacity. The Court authorised a planned C-section as the least restrictive, safest option for both AX and her unborn child, due to the medical risks of spontaneous labour and emergency intervention.
For legal professionals, the case is a reminder of the importance of contemporaneous capacity assessments and the evidential strength of a multidisciplinary clinical consensus. It also reinforces that prior wishes, even if no longer actively expressed, can carry substantial weight in the Court’s reasoning.
Final thoughts
This decision offers a useful precedent for cases involving obstetric decision-making for individuals with severe mental illness. It calls for sensitive, timely application of legal principles that respect autonomy while safeguarding welfare. As the boundaries between medical care and legal oversight continue to blur, collaborative practice between clinicians and legal advisers has never been more vital.
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.