PT  - JOURNAL ARTICLE
AU  - Malcolm K Smith
AU  - Tracey Carver
TI  - <em>Montgomery</em>, informed consent and causation of harm: lessons from Australia or a uniquely English approach to patient autonomy?
AID  - 10.1136/medethics-2017-104273
DP  - 2018 Jun 01
TA  - Journal of Medical Ethics
PG  - 384--388
VI  - 44
IP  - 6
4099  - http://jme.bmj.com/content/44/6/384.short
4100  - http://jme.bmj.com/content/44/6/384.full
SO  - J Med Ethics2018 Jun 01; 44
AB  - 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.