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?
{"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":"26-45"},"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'.
本文旨在探讨英国法律中的知情同意。在Montgomery诉拉纳克郡卫生委员会[2015]UKSC 11, [2015] AC 1430之后,对知情同意的态度已经转变为更加以患者为中心的方法,而不是长期存在的Bolam决定,临床判断被更广泛地接受。因此,在蒙哥马利的决定之后,病人需要知道拟议治疗的重大风险,而不是医生认为什么是最佳做法,这是自1957年波拉姆决定以来的长期共识,随后的病例也紧随其后。蒙哥马利原则使医患关系更加透明,允许医生和病人之间的讨论成为中心焦点。蒙哥马利的结果是医疗保健领域非常需要的改变,因为在此之前,可以看到病人是在代表他们做出决定,如果他们被告知相关的风险,他们可能会决定不进行手术。钻石的v皇家德文郡和埃克塞特NHS信托基金会[2019]EWCA文明585年案例突出了因果关系的问题在医疗过失诉讼中如果医生不警告风险和建议治疗替代这不会导致要求损失赔偿因为病人在这种情况下会举行推进网格修复在任何情况下,因此未能建立因果关系可能导致没有救济就像钻石。此外,最近的McCulloch等人诉Forth Valley Health Board [2023] UKSC 26案,给那些认为或相信蒙哥马利已经明确了向患者披露替代治疗的立场的人的伤口上撒了一点盐,令我们沮丧的是,英国法院再次做出了有利于“Bolam”的裁决。
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.