Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Not so new directions in the law of consent? Examining Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
  1. Anne Maree Farrell1,
  2. Margaret Brazier2
  1. 1Faculty of Law, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
  2. 2School of Law, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
  1. Correspondence to Dr Anne-Maree Farrell, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Clayton Campus, Wellington Road, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia; a.m.farrell{at}


This paper examines the UK Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, which deals with consent and information disclosure in medical treatment and care. It signaled a move away from a ‘doctor knows best’ approach to one that focuses on disclosing information to which particular patients would attach significance. Notwithstanding concerns about increased litigation and loss of professional autonomy, the reality is that the decision will make little difference to healthcare practice and consent in the UK. The Supreme Court has endorsed a view that most lawyers and doctors thought already prevailed, and it reflects the General Medical Council's guidance on the issue of consent in any case. Given recent healthcare scandals in the National Health Service (NHS), the Supreme Court's legal recognition of the importance of recognizing patient autonomy in disclosing risks about medical treatment and care is a welcome development.

  • Ethics

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Linked Articles

  • Current controversy
    Jonathan Montgomery Elsa Montgomery
  • The concise argument
    Michael Dunn

Other content recommended for you