Consent after Montgomery: What next for healthcare professionals?

Philippa White
{"title":"Consent after Montgomery: What next for healthcare professionals?","authors":"Philippa White","doi":"10.1177/1356262216665489","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The standard of care for consent to treatment has moved to the ‘prudent patient’ or ‘Montgomery’ standard, following the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire (2015). The standard of care for treatment itself remains the ‘prudent practitioner’ or Bolam Standard following Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957). What does this splitting of the legal standard of care for consent mean for the health professionals who deliver care to patients, and what does it mean for the quality of information patients now ought to expect to receive when they consent to treatment? This article considers the advent of true legal ‘informed consent’ into UK healthcare practice, and what it means for information provision to patients from an allied health professional medicolegal perspective.","PeriodicalId":89664,"journal":{"name":"Clinical risk","volume":"22 1","pages":"33 - 37"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262216665489","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical risk","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262216665489","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

The standard of care for consent to treatment has moved to the ‘prudent patient’ or ‘Montgomery’ standard, following the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire (2015). The standard of care for treatment itself remains the ‘prudent practitioner’ or Bolam Standard following Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee (1957). What does this splitting of the legal standard of care for consent mean for the health professionals who deliver care to patients, and what does it mean for the quality of information patients now ought to expect to receive when they consent to treatment? This article considers the advent of true legal ‘informed consent’ into UK healthcare practice, and what it means for information provision to patients from an allied health professional medicolegal perspective.
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
蒙哥马利事件后的同意:医疗保健专业人员的下一步是什么?
在蒙哥马利诉拉纳克郡案(2015年)之后,同意治疗的护理标准已经转移到“谨慎患者”或“蒙哥马利”标准。治疗本身的护理标准仍然是“谨慎的从业者”或Bolam标准,遵循Bolam诉Friern医院管理委员会(1957年)。对于向患者提供医疗服务的卫生专业人员来说,这种法律标准的分裂意味着什么?对于现在患者在同意治疗时应该期望得到的信息质量又意味着什么?本文考虑了真正的法律“知情同意”进入英国医疗保健实践的到来,以及它对从专职医疗专业医学法律角度向患者提供信息的意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Promoter methylation of matrix metallopeptidase 9 in peripheral blood mononuclear cells: A novel biomarker in a promising source for noninvasive colorectal cancer diagnosis. Incident reporting and a culture of safety Battram v Dr Geoghegan Reconciliation of hospital discharge summaries and changes in patient medications Improving healthcare through the use of ‘medical manslaughter’? Facts, fears and the future
×
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