In a seminal High Court (sitting as the Court of Protection) ruling delivered by Ms. Justice Eleanor King, a man with significant learning difficulties has been ordered to undergo a vasectomy to prevent him from having more children.
Mr. Justice King remarked that there was ‘no question’ of the man known as ‘DE’ of having the mental capacity to use contraception, but that it is lawful and overwhelming in the best interests of ‘DE’ to have a vasectomy.
‘DE’ is in a long term relationship with his girlfriend ‘PQ’, who also has learning difficulties. In 2010 ‘PQ’ gave birth to ‘XY’, a boy of whom ‘DE’ is the biological father.
Measures were taken to prevent another pregnancy, as a result. ‘DE’ was required to be supervised at all times, effectively losing his independence.
For both families, the consequences were profound. It also impacted on the relationship between ‘DE’ and ‘PQ’, which ‘nearly broke under the strain, but remarkably weathered the storm’.
The son ‘XY’ is now in the care of his maternal grandmother. However, the High Court heard it was inevitable that if ‘DE’ and ‘PQ’ had another child, the child would be taken into care. This would cause significant psychological distress, likely resulting in a breakdown of the relationship.
‘DE’ has made it clear that he does not want any more children. The Court heard that ‘DE’ took no parental responsibility, and is not willing to give up his own life to be a father.
While Ms. Justice King considered the restoration of his independence and the resumption of his relationship with ‘PQ’, to be of the utmost importance, a vasectomy is ‘undoubtedly’ in the best interests of ‘DE’.
Ms. Justice King insisted that the seriousness of making the court order that ‘had the effect of taking away the fertility of a man’ had not been underestimated:
In my judgment it is overwhelmingly in DE’s best interests to have a vasectomy. That being said the court does not make such an order lightly, conscious as it is for the court to make an order permitting the lifelong removal of a person’s fertility for non-medical reasons requires strong justification.
The seminal ruling followed a four day trial, marking a three-year legal battle for the parents of ‘DE’.
The parents of ‘DE’ went to their local General Practitioner and requested ‘DE’ have a vasectomy, in 2010. The matter was referred to the local NHS Trust. An application by the NHS Trust was made to the High Court with the support of the parents of ‘DE’, the General Practitioner, and the local authority involved in the care of ‘DE’.
Comment: The only known previous case in the United Kingdom involving an application for male sterilisation was in 1999. The Court refused, ruling that a vasectomy would not be in the best medical and emotional interests of the 28-year old with Down’s Syndrome.
