{"title":"耐心的力量:解释蒙哥马利事件的义务和法定的坦白义务","authors":"Chris Hough","doi":"10.1177/1356262216654039","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The combination of the introduction of a statutory duty of candour and the Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board emphasises the profound change in the doctor–patient relationship that has occurred over the last few decades. As a society, we have moved a long way from the paternalistic doctor deciding what is best for his (and it was usually a his) patient. This article considers the changes and how they may be used in a clinical negligence claim.","PeriodicalId":89664,"journal":{"name":"Clinical risk","volume":"22 1","pages":"11 - 6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262216654039","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Patient power: The duty to explain post Montgomery and the statutory duty of candour\",\"authors\":\"Chris Hough\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1356262216654039\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The combination of the introduction of a statutory duty of candour and the Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board emphasises the profound change in the doctor–patient relationship that has occurred over the last few decades. As a society, we have moved a long way from the paternalistic doctor deciding what is best for his (and it was usually a his) patient. This article considers the changes and how they may be used in a clinical negligence claim.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical risk\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"11 - 6\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262216654039\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical risk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262216654039\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical risk","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262216654039","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Patient power: The duty to explain post Montgomery and the statutory duty of candour
The combination of the introduction of a statutory duty of candour and the Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board emphasises the profound change in the doctor–patient relationship that has occurred over the last few decades. As a society, we have moved a long way from the paternalistic doctor deciding what is best for his (and it was usually a his) patient. This article considers the changes and how they may be used in a clinical negligence claim.