A Critical Appraisal of Informed Consent in English Medical Law: A Patient-Centred Approach Against Medical Paternalism: Who Gets to Decide What Is Best for Me?

Lisa Kachina Poku
{"title":"A Critical Appraisal of Informed Consent in English Medical Law: A Patient-Centred Approach Against Medical Paternalism: Who Gets to Decide What Is Best for Me?","authors":"Lisa Kachina Poku","doi":"10.1163/15718093-bja10138","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This article seeks to discuss informed consent in English law. The attitudes on informed consent have shifted to a more patient-centred approach following Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, [2015] AC 1430, as opposed to the long-standing Bolam decision where clinical judgment was more widely accepted. Thus, following on from the decision in Montgomery a patient is required to know about material risks regarding the proposed treatment and not what the doctor thinks would be the best practice as has been the long-standing consensus since Bolam was decided back in 1957 with subsequent cases following suit. The Montgomery principle has allowed more transparency in the patient-doctor relationship, allowing for a discussion between the doctor and the patient to be the central focus. The outcome of Montgomery was a much needed change in healthcare because prior to this it could be seen that patients were having decisions made on their behalf, and if they had been informed accordingly regarding the risks involved may have decided not to go ahead with the procedure. In the case of Diamond v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 585 the case highlights the issue of causation in medical negligence action if a doctor does not warn of risks and advise treatment alternatives this would not result in a claim for damages because the patient in this case as was held would have gone ahead with the mesh repair in any case, and thus failing to establish causation could result in no remedy as it did in Diamond. Furthermore, the recent case of McCulloch and others v Forth Valley Health Board [2023] UKSC 26 adds a bit of salt to the wounds of those who had thought or believed that Montgomery had already clarified the position regarding disclosure of alternative treatments to a patient, and to our dismay to learn of that once again English courts have ruled in favour of 'Bolam'.</p>","PeriodicalId":43934,"journal":{"name":"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW","volume":" ","pages":"1-20"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF HEALTH LAW","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718093-bja10138","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This article seeks to discuss informed consent in English law. The attitudes on informed consent have shifted to a more patient-centred approach following Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, [2015] AC 1430, as opposed to the long-standing Bolam decision where clinical judgment was more widely accepted. Thus, following on from the decision in Montgomery a patient is required to know about material risks regarding the proposed treatment and not what the doctor thinks would be the best practice as has been the long-standing consensus since Bolam was decided back in 1957 with subsequent cases following suit. The Montgomery principle has allowed more transparency in the patient-doctor relationship, allowing for a discussion between the doctor and the patient to be the central focus. The outcome of Montgomery was a much needed change in healthcare because prior to this it could be seen that patients were having decisions made on their behalf, and if they had been informed accordingly regarding the risks involved may have decided not to go ahead with the procedure. In the case of Diamond v Royal Devon & Exeter NHS Foundation Trust [2019] EWCA Civ 585 the case highlights the issue of causation in medical negligence action if a doctor does not warn of risks and advise treatment alternatives this would not result in a claim for damages because the patient in this case as was held would have gone ahead with the mesh repair in any case, and thus failing to establish causation could result in no remedy as it did in Diamond. Furthermore, the recent case of McCulloch and others v Forth Valley Health Board [2023] UKSC 26 adds a bit of salt to the wounds of those who had thought or believed that Montgomery had already clarified the position regarding disclosure of alternative treatments to a patient, and to our dismay to learn of that once again English courts have ruled in favour of 'Bolam'.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
52
期刊介绍: The European Journal of Jewish Studies (EJJS) is the Journal of the European Association for Jewish Studies (EAJS). Its main purpose is to publish high-quality research articles, essays and shorter contributions on all aspects of Jewish Studies. Submissions are all double blind peer-reviewed. Additionally, EJJS seeks to inform its readers on current developments in Jewish Studies: it carries comprehensive review-essays on specific topics, trends and debated questions, as well as regular book-reviews. A further section carries reports on conferences, symposia, and descriptions of research projects in every area of Jewish Studies.
期刊最新文献
European Court of Human Rights. A Critical Appraisal of Informed Consent in English Medical Law: A Patient-Centred Approach Against Medical Paternalism: Who Gets to Decide What Is Best for Me? The European Union's Influence on the Organisation of National Healthcare Systems. Navigating the Trends after the COVID-19 Pandemic. The Legal Issues Regarding the Reimbursement of Drugs Used to Treat Muscular Atrophy and the Actual Situation in the Slovak Republic. ECJ 2024/5, Auken and Others v Commission, 17 July 2024 (case t-689/21) and Courtois and Others v Commission, 17 July 2024 (case t-761/21).
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1