## Facts

- F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1990] 2 AC 1 concerned the lawfulness of providing medical treatment to individuals incapable of providing consent.
- The case addressed the legal framework for when doctors may intervene medically where a patient lacks capacity, focusing on the application of the doctrine of necessity and the requirement that treatment be in the patient's best interests.
- The House of Lords reviewed circumstances in which judicial oversight may be required, including situations involving significant interventions such as sterilization or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment.
- The case examined the roles of medical professionals, family members, and the courts in decision-making on behalf of incapacitated patients.

## Issues

1. Whether the doctrine of necessity justifies medical treatment without consent for patients lacking capacity.
2. What criteria determine whether such treatment is lawful, particularly regarding the patient's best interests.
3. Whether judicial oversight is required for significant medical decisions made for incapacitated individuals.
4. What safeguards and procedural requirements must be observed by medical professionals and the courts in these cases.

## Decision

- The House of Lords held that medical intervention without consent may be justified under the doctrine of necessity where the patient cannot provide consent.
- Treatment must be objectively assessed as being in the patient’s best interests, considering medical, emotional, and social factors.
- Judicial approval is required for major decisions, such as sterilization or withdrawal of life-sustaining treatment, to ensure legal and ethical compliance.
- The decision established procedural requirements, including the presentation of comprehensive medical evidence and multidisciplinary input.
- The welfare of the incapacitated patient must remain the primary consideration in all decisions.

## Legal Principles

- The doctrine of necessity permits treatment without consent when necessary to prevent harm or preserve life, not restricted to emergencies.
- Lawful treatment requires an objective, evidence-based assessment that the intervention is in the patient's best interests.
- Judicial oversight acts as a safeguard for significant medical decisions involving incapacitated patients.
- Best interests assessments must incorporate medical, emotional, and social factors and avoid subjective or biased judgments.
- Medical professionals have an ongoing duty of care that includes ethical and legal responsibilities to incapacitated patients.

## Conclusion

The House of Lords in F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1990] 2 AC 1 established that necessity may justify medical treatment for incapacitated patients when objectively assessed as being in their best interests, with judicial scrutiny and procedural safeguards required for significant interventions, shaping the legal and ethical framework for medical decision-making without consent.


F v West Berkshire Health Authority [1990] 2 AC 1 (HL)