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.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
|---|---|
| http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2015-102861 | DOI Listing |
Publication Analysis
Top Keywords
Similar Publications
Reviewing past and present consent practices in unplanned obstetric interventions: an eye towards the future.
J Med Ethics
June 2024
Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford, UK.
Many first-time mothers (primiparous) within UK National Health Service (NHS) settings require an obstetric intervention to deliver their babies safely. While the antepartum period allows time for conversations about consent for planned interventions, such as elective caesarean section, current practice is that, in emergencies, consent is addressed in the moments before the intervention takes place. This paper explores whether there are limitations on the validity of consent offered in time-pressured and emotionally charged circumstances, specifically concerning emergency obstetric interventions.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFThe importance of written communication between clinicians and patients, especially in the wake of the Supreme Court case of Montgomery vs Lanarkshire, has led to a shift toward patient-centric care in the United Kingdom. This study investigates the use of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT and Google Bard in enhancing clinic letters with gold-standard complication profiles, aiming to improve patients' understanding and save clinicians' time in aesthetic plastic surgery. The aim of this study is to assess the effectiveness of LLMs in integrating complication profiles from authoritative sources into clinic letters, thus enhancing patient comprehension and clinician efficiency in aesthetic plastic surgery.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFConsent for Medical Treatment: What is 'Reasonable'?
Health Care Anal
March 2024
Department of Surgery, The Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Beckett Street, Leeds, UK.
The General Medical Council (GMC) instructs doctors to act 'reasonably' in obtaining consent from patients. However, the GMC does not explain what it means to be reasonable: it is left to doctors to figure out the substance of this instruction. The GMC relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board; and it can be assumed that the judges' idea of reasonability is adopted.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFCOVID-19 Vaccination and the Role of Informed Consent: England as a Case Study.
Eur J Health Law
May 2023
Robinson College, University of Cambridge 61455 Grange Road, Cambridge CB3 9AN UK.
Informed consent (IC), following the Supreme Court judgment in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, [2015] UKSC 11, constitutes a key patients' right. There is a vast literature exploring the significance of this right, while an analysis of the role that this has played in England during the COVID-19 vaccine distribution has been under-explored. Using England as a case study, this paper argues that IC has received limited protection in the COVID-19 vaccination context of the adult population, upholding at its best only a minimalistic approach where mere 'consent' has been safeguarded.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFIntroduction: Consent is a fundamental aspect of surgery and expectations around the consent process have changed following the Montgomery vs Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) court ruling. This study aimed to identify trends in litigation pertaining to consent, explore variation in how consent is practised among general surgeons and identify potential causes of this variation.
Methods: This mixed-methods study examined temporal variation in litigation rates relating to consent (between 2011 and 2020), using data obtained from National Health Service (NHS) Resolutions.
Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!