A judge has ruled that doctors will be allowed to perform a cesarean section on a woman against her will due to her mental health difficulties.
The woman, who is in her late 20s and suffers from diabetes, has been diagnosed with a schizoaffective disorder.
She is currently detained under mental health laws but the woman, who is 40 weeks pregnant, had wanted to give birth naturally.
However specialists said a natural birth would be risky given her diabetes and could result in the baby being stillborn.
Mr Justice Francis ruled that doctors could perform a cesarean without the woman's consent at an urgent online hearing at the Court of Protection on Thursday.
The Court of Protection is where judges consider issues relating to people who might lack the mental capacity to take decisions for themselves.
The woman, who the court ruled could not be identified, is in the care of the Chelsea and Westminster Hospital NHS Foundation Trust.
The trust’s lawyers brought the case asking that doctors be lawfully allowed to perform the operation, despite the patient’s wishes for a natural birth.
A barrister representing the woman also said a cesarean section would be in her best interests.
Mr Justice Francis concluded that the woman lacked the mental capacity to make decisions about treatment for herself.
He said the evidence led him to "unhesitatingly accept" that the order the trust wanted should be made.
Specialists treating the woman said even if she started to give birth naturally, she would probably need a cesarean section.
They said a pre-planned cesarean section was the only "realistic alternative".
Barrister Parishil Patel QC, who led the trust's legal team, told the judge that the woman was 40 weeks pregnant and gave details of her medical difficulties.
"She has a diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder," he said.
"Her pregnancy is significantly complicated by gestational diabetes and her compliance with medication to manage the risks from diabetes has been sporadic."
He added: "The consequence is that there is a very significant (and increasing) risk of harm to the foetus, and consequent harm to (her).
"The reason for the proceedings is to allow the clinicians involved in her obstetric care to carry out an elective cesarean section as soon as possible so that her baby can be safely delivered and the risks to (her) health can be minimised."
He said a member of the woman's family also thought she should have an elective cesarean section.
Barrister Katie Gollop QC represented the woman and was instructed by staff at the office of the Official Solicitor, who help vulnerable people embroiled in litigation.
She said it was "never comfortable" to argue that someone should have "serious surgical intervention" against their wishes.
But she said evidence showed that the woman would require a cesarean section "in any event".
She said a "precautionary approach" was best.
