{"title":"蒙哥马利诉拉纳克郡卫生委员会:最高法院对精神病学裁决的影响","authors":"Michael Yousif","doi":"10.1177/1356262216666982","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In ruling in favour of Nadine Montgomery in her claim of negligence against Lanarkshire Health Board, the Supreme Court changed the law in matters of informed consent. Having previously relied on the Bolam test of the professional opinion of medical peers, the information doctors must disclose to their patients is now determined by a much more patient-centred test. Despite this, it is not clear how, if at all, the ruling affects modern medical practice. In this article, the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling for psychiatry are considered. It is unlikely the ruling will alter day-to-day clinical practice. It does, however, serve to highlight and reinforce key principles of good psychiatric practice.","PeriodicalId":89664,"journal":{"name":"Clinical risk","volume":"22 1","pages":"30 - 32"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2016-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262216666982","citationCount":"2","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board: Implications of the Supreme Court ruling for psychiatry\",\"authors\":\"Michael Yousif\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/1356262216666982\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In ruling in favour of Nadine Montgomery in her claim of negligence against Lanarkshire Health Board, the Supreme Court changed the law in matters of informed consent. Having previously relied on the Bolam test of the professional opinion of medical peers, the information doctors must disclose to their patients is now determined by a much more patient-centred test. Despite this, it is not clear how, if at all, the ruling affects modern medical practice. In this article, the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling for psychiatry are considered. It is unlikely the ruling will alter day-to-day clinical practice. It does, however, serve to highlight and reinforce key principles of good psychiatric practice.\",\"PeriodicalId\":89664,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Clinical risk\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"30 - 32\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-03-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1356262216666982\",\"citationCount\":\"2\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Clinical risk\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/1356262216666982\",\"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/10.1177/1356262216666982","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board: Implications of the Supreme Court ruling for psychiatry
In ruling in favour of Nadine Montgomery in her claim of negligence against Lanarkshire Health Board, the Supreme Court changed the law in matters of informed consent. Having previously relied on the Bolam test of the professional opinion of medical peers, the information doctors must disclose to their patients is now determined by a much more patient-centred test. Despite this, it is not clear how, if at all, the ruling affects modern medical practice. In this article, the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling for psychiatry are considered. It is unlikely the ruling will alter day-to-day clinical practice. It does, however, serve to highlight and reinforce key principles of good psychiatric practice.