Article Text
Abstract
The UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board adopts an approach to information disclosure in connection with clinical treatment that moves away from medical paternalism towards a more patient-centred approach. In doing so, it reinforces the protection afforded to informed consent and autonomous patient decision making under the law of negligence. However, some commentators have expressed a concern that the widening of the healthcare providers’ duty of disclosure may provide impetus, in future cases, for courts to adopt a more rigorous approach to the application of causation principles. The aim would be to limit liability but, in turn, it would also limit autonomy protection. Such a restrictive approach has recently been adopted in Australia as a result of the High Court decision in Wallace v Kam. This paper considers whether such an approach is likely under English negligence law and discusses case law from both jurisdictions in order to provide a point of comparison from which to scope the post-Montgomery future.
- informed consent
- negligence
- law
- tort law
Statistics from Altmetric.com
Read the full text or download the PDF:
Other content recommended for you
- Not so new directions in the law of consent? Examining Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
- Montgomery on informed consent: an inexpert decision?
- ‘Hobson’s choice’: a qualitative study of consent in acute surgery
- Update on the UK law on consent
- Disclosure and consent: ensuring the ethical provision of information regarding childbirth
- Ethics briefings
- The Supreme Court’s decision in McCulloch v Forth Valley Health Board: Does it condone healthcare injustice?
- ‘Bolam’ to ‘Montgomery’ is result of evolutionary change of medical practice towards ‘patient-centred care’
- Induction of labour for predicted macrosomia: study protocol for the ‘Big Baby’ randomised controlled trial
- 'Advice, not orders’? The evolving legal status of clinical guidelines