Article info
PDFCurrent controversy
Not so new directions in the law of consent? Examining Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
- Correspondence to Dr Anne-Maree Farrell, Faculty of Law, Monash University, Clayton Campus, Wellington Road, Melbourne, VIC 3800, Australia; a.m.farrell{at}monash.edu
Citation
Not so new directions in the law of consent? Examining Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board
Publication history
- Received November 12, 2015
- Accepted November 23, 2015
- First published December 18, 2015.
Online issue publication
January 25, 2016
Article Versions
- Previous version (18 December 2015).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
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.
Copyright information
Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://www.bmj.com/company/products-services/rights-and-licensing/
Other content recommended for you
- Montgomery, informed consent and causation of harm: lessons from Australia or a uniquely English approach to patient autonomy?
- ‘Bolam’ to ‘Montgomery’ is result of evolutionary change of medical practice towards ‘patient-centred care’
- Update on the UK law on consent
- Vulnerability, therapeutic misconception and informed consent: is there a need for special treatment of pregnant women in fetus-regarding clinical trials?
- Disclosure and consent: ensuring the ethical provision of information regarding childbirth
- Montgomery on informed consent: an inexpert decision?
- Valid consent to medical treatment
- Ethics briefings
- One step forward, two steps back? The GMC, the common law and ‘informed’ consent
- GMC confidentiality guidance 2017