• Supporting clients through COVID-19 and Brexit

  • Supporting clients through COVID-19 and Brexit

  • Brachers
  • Home
  • COVID-19
  • Insights
  • Our People
  • Careers
  • About Brachers
    • Our Story
    • Awards and Accreditations
    • Corporate Social Responsibility
  • Events
  • Pay online
  • Conveyancing quote
  • Contact us
    • Solicitors in Maidstone
    • Solicitors in Canterbury
  • Personal Law
    • Personal Law
    • Court of Protection
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Employment Law Advice
    • Family and Divorce
    • Medical Negligence
    • Personal Injury and Industrial Disease
    • Powers of Attorney
    • Property and Conveyancing
    • Tax Planning
    • Trusts
    • Wills and Probate
  • Business Law
    • Business Law
    • Commercial Law
    • Commercial Dispute Resolution
    • Commercial Property Law
    • Corporate, Banking and Finance
    • Debt Recovery
    • Defending Industrial Disease Claims
    • Employment Law & HR Support
    • Environmental Law
    • Insolvency
    • Licensing Law
    • Planning Law
    • Regulatory Law
  • Sector Support
    • Sector Support
    • Agriculture and Rural
    • Charities
    • Construction
    • Education
    • Healthcare
    • Life Sciences
    • Primary Care
    • Property Investors, Developers and Landlords
    • 01622 690691
    • Pay Online
    • Conveyancing Quote
    Brachers
  • Brachers
    • COVID-19
    • Insights
    • Our People
    • Careers
    • About Brachers
      • Our Story
      • Awards and Accreditations
      • Corporate Social Responsibility
    • Events
    • Contact Us
      • Maidstone office
      • Canterbury office
    •  
  • Personal Law
  • Business Law
  • Sector Support
  • Court of Protection
    • Court of Protection
    • Benefits Advice for Financial Attorneys and Deputies
    • Financial Deputy Applications Advice
    • Gifting Applications
    • Professional Financial Attorney and Deputy
    • Statutory Will Applications
    • Welfare Applications
  • Dispute Resolution
    • Dispute Resolution
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution ‘ADR’
    • Consumer Disputes
    • Landlord and Tenant Disputes
    • Professional Negligence Disputes
    • Property & Land Law Disputes
    • Wills, Trusts and Probate Disputes Solicitors
  • Employment Law Advice
    • Employment Law Advice
    • Director Disputes
    • Disciplinary, Capability, Sickness and Grievance Issues
    • Settlement Agreements
    • Tribunal Claims Advice and Representation
  • Family and Divorce
    • Family and Divorce
    • Arbitration
    • Children Law
    • Civil Partnership
    • Collaborative Law
    • Divorce
    • Financial Settlement on Divorce
    • Injunctions
    • Cohabitation
    • Mediation
    • Pre and Post Nuptial Agreement
  • Medical Negligence
    • Medical Negligence
    • Accident and Emergency Claims
    • Birth Injury Claims
    • Cancer Diagnosis Claims
    • Cardiac and Vascular Claims
    • Child Injury Claims
    • Cosmetic Surgery Claims
    • Fatal Injury Claims and Inquest Representation
    • Medical Negligence FAQs
    • Ophthalmic Claims
    • Orthopaedic and Spinal Injury Claims
  • Personal Injury and Industrial Disease
    • Personal Injury and Industrial Disease
    • Asbestos Disease
    • Fatal Accident Claims
    • Head Injury
    • Mesothelioma Claims
    • Other Industrial Disease Claims
    • Other Personal Injury Claims
    • Post Traumatic Stress Disorder/Psychiatric Injury Claims
  • Powers of Attorney
    • Powers of Attorney
    • Elderly and Vulnerable
  • Property and Conveyancing
    • Property and Conveyancing
    • Buying and Selling Residential Property
    • Declarations of Trust
    • Equity Release
    • Mortgages
    • Lease Extensions
    • Plot Sales
    • Residential Tenancies
    • Transfer of Equity
    • Joint Tenancy or Tenancy in Common
  • Tax Planning
  • Trusts
    • Trusts
    • Brachers Trust Corporation
    • Setting up a Trust
    • Trust Management Services
  • Wills and Probate
    • Wills and Probate
    • Probate and Estate Administration Solicitors
    • Wills
    • Wills, Trusts and Probate Disputes Solicitors
  • Coronavirus Support for Families and Individuals
  • Commercial Law
    • Commercial Law
    • Commercial Agreements
    • Commercial Projects
    • Information Technology
    • Intellectual Property (IP)
  • Commercial Dispute Resolution
    • Commercial Dispute Resolution
    • Alternative Dispute Resolution ‘ADR’ for Business
    • Business to Business Disputes
    • Contract Disputes
    • Corporate Disputes
    • Intellectual Property and Technology Disputes
    • Partnership Disputes
    • Property and Land Disputes
  • Commercial Property Law
    • Commercial Property Law
    • Finance Advice for Commercial Property
    • Occupiers and Tenants
    • Property Investors, Developers and Landlords
  • Corporate, Banking and Finance
    • Corporate, Banking and Finance
    • Shareholder Arrangements and Share Option Schemes Advice
    • Corporate Banking Law and Asset-Based Lending
    • Corporate Restructures and Demergers
    • Legal Advice for Joint Venture Companies
    • Mergers, Acquisitions and Disposals
    • Partnership and LLP
    • Private Equity and Venture Finance
  • Data Protection and GDPR
  • Debt Recovery
    • Debt Recovery
    • Credit Management
    • Portfolio Management and Outsourcing
    • Consumer Collections and Recoveries
  • Defending Industrial Disease Claims
    • Defending Industrial Disease Claims
    • Defending Asbestos Claims
    • Defending Hearing Loss / Deafness Claims
  • Employment Law & HR Support
    • Employment Law & HR Support
    • Brachers Protect
    • Employment Contracts
    • Discrimination, Discipline, Dismissals & Grievances
    • Employee Exits and Settlement Agreements
    • Employment Law Developments
    • Employment Law Training
    • Employment Tribunal Claims
    • Industrial Relations
    • Redundancy, Reorganisation & Restructuring
    • Restrictive Covenants
    • TUPE Law
    • Wellbeing at Work
    • Workplace Wellbeing Review
  • Environmental Law
  • Insolvency
    • Insolvency
    • Services to Businesses & Company Directors
    • Services to Creditors
    • Services to Insolvency Practitioners
  • Licensing Law
  • Planning Law
  • Regulatory Law
    • Regulatory Law
    • Criminal Prosecution Law
  • Coronavirus Support for Businesses
  • Agriculture and Rural
    • Agriculture and Rural
    • Commercial Law in Rural Business
    • Corporate Law in Rural Business
    • Employment Law in Rural Business
    • Family Law in Rural Business
    • Health and Safety Law in Rural Business
    • Planning & Environmental Law
    • Rural Property and Buildings Law
    • Secured Lending in Rural Business
    • Solving Disputes in Rural Business
    • Succession Planning for Farming Businesses
  • Charities
    • Charities
    • Charity Mergers and Collaboration
    • Funding Advice for Charities
    • HR Advice for Charities
    • Kent Good Governance Charity Forum
    • Organisational Review for Charities
    • Setting up a Charity or Social Enterprise Legal Advice
  • Construction
    • Construction
    • Construction Disputes
    • Construction Project Documentation
  • Education
    • Education
    • Academy conversions and free schools
    • Development and Expansion
    • Education Matters Forum
    • Freedom of Information and Data Protection
    • Governance, Complaints and Appeals Law in Education
    • Legal Advice when Purchasing Goods and Services for Schools
    • Legal Advice for School Premises
    • Legal Advice for Staff Management
  • Healthcare
    • Healthcare
    • NHS
    • Independent Healthcare Providers
    • Legal Support for Care Providers
    • Medical Defence
  • Life Sciences
  • Primary Care
    • Primary Care
    • Commercial and NHS Contracts
    • Employment & HR Law for GPs
    • GP Federations Advice
    • GP Partnership Agreements
    • GP Premises
    • New Premises, Development & Expansion
  • Property Investors, Developers and Landlords

Home > Insights > Patient consent – the devil in the detail

  • Insights
    Insight - Healthcare - POSTED: May 27 2015

    Patient consent – the devil in the detail

    The legal landscape has shifted in relation to clinical negligence claims that a patient’s consent was not properly obtained for treatment in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11. The effects of this decision may be far reaching and mean that doctors need carefully to consider their processes for obtaining patient consent.

    • Share this article
      Share
    • Print this article
  • The legal landscape has shifted in relation to clinical negligence claims that a patient’s consent was not properly obtained for treatment in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11. The effects of this decision may be far reaching and mean that doctors need carefully to consider their processes for obtaining patient consent.

    Before Montgomery, the ‘Bolam’ test was applied in cases dealing with patient consent, although some cases had called this into question. The Bolam test has long been the yardstick by which medical professionals are measured to establish whether they are in breach of their duty of care to a patient. The test is essentially whether another body of reasonable doctors in the same field would have acted in the same way.

    Following the judgement in Montgomery, it has been confirmed that the Bolam test no longer applies to cases regarding consent, although Bolam remains the test that has to be met to establish that a doctor is in breach of duty in all other types of clinical negligence claims. This means that a doctor can no longer defend a claim brought against him that a patient’s proper consent was not obtained for a particular treatment (i.e that the risks were not fully explained) by proving that another body of reasonable doctors would have obtained consent in the same way and explained the same risks.

    Cases have been successfully defended in the past on the basis, for example, that whilst a risk was not explained, the doctor did not need to do so as the risk was so small and a reasonable body of other doctors would not have mentioned this. Some considered this a paternalistic approach as doctors were upheld in making decisions as to what patients needed to know.

    The Supreme Court in Montgomery set out that:

    ‘An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of the available forms of treatment to undergo, and her consent must be obtained before treatment interfering with her bodily integrity is undertaken.

    The doctor is therefore under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments.

    The test of materiality is whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it.’

    The only exceptions to this that the Court set out were where disclosure of certain risks would be detrimental to a patient’s health or in circumstances where consent is not possible due the urgency with which treatment is required. The extent of this judgement is yet to be tested but it leaves many questions. It appears conceivable that a doctor would be expected to explain every possible risk of a procedure to a patient as it is arguable that any risk could be relevant to a reasonable person. Montgomery makes clear that the risks that must be explained are not predicated upon the percentage chance of their occurring.

    Accordingly, does a doctor need to explain a risk of a treatment which is so rare as to occur in less than 0.1% of cases? To what extent is a doctor under a duty to establish a patient’s personal circumstances in order to consider what risks would be material to them? In an already stretched health system there is an argument that the burden upon doctors in respect of the process needed to ensure proper consent is obtained is great. On the other hand, this is a move away from perceived medical paternalism and clarifies the legal position that patients must understand fully their medical treatment and that doctors have a duty to ensure this is the case.

    Good relationships between patients and doctors are of course vital to the smooth running of our health care system and published dialogue is an important part of this.

    Whether it will now be easier to bring claims in respect of consent remains to be seen but doctors can no longer rely on other clinicians to comment upon the suitability of their consenting procedure. The Court is now the arbiter of this.

    In light of the Montgomery decision, doctors need to give consideration to their practices in respect of obtaining patient consent. Detailing the risks explained to a patient in paperwork is very important. Doctors are often assisted in respect of obtaining patient consent by providing letters / leaflets setting out the relevant treatment and its associated risks. A doctor is still under a duty to explain the relevant risks to his patient but leaflets are a useful tool. These documents may require review to ensure they include all relevant risks.

    Many standard consent forms do not have sufficient room to set out a long list of risks and these may also need review. Updated training to medical professionals is also important to ensure that they are aware of their duties as set out by the Supreme Court.

    Can we help?

    Take a look at our Healthcare page for useful information, resources, guidance, details of our team and how we may be able to help you

  • Get in touch

    Please fill out the below form or alternatively you can call us on 01622 690691

      By submitting an enquiry through 'get in touch' your data will only be used to contact you regarding your enquiry. Please view our website and cookie policy for more information
  • Related Articles & Events

    View all
  • Healthcare

    Confidentiality New GMC Guidance

    Insight

    Posted 13th July 2017

  • Healthcare

    Health and Care Professions Tribunals Service Launched

    Insight

    Posted 13th July 2017

  • Healthcare

    Consent Montgomery Applied 2017

    Insight

    Posted 13th July 2017

  • Healthcare

    Medical Duty of Care to a third party?

    Insight

    Posted 13th July 2017

  • Healthcare

    Safe Space Proposal Abandoned

    Insight

    Posted 13th July 2017

  • Healthcare

    Coroner’s Court 2014 – Chief Coroner’s Report

    Insight

    Posted 20th August 2014

  • Brachers with you all the way Logo
    • Statutory Information (including complaints policy)
    • Cookie Policy
    • Refund Policy
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Engagement
    • Website Accessibility
    • Contact Us
    • Sitemap
  • Contact Us

    T: 01622 690691
    F: 01622 681430
    E: hello@brachers.co.uk
    • LinkedIn Icon
    • Facebook Icon
    • Twitter Icon

    Sign up for our newsletter

    Unsubscribe from our newsletter

    SIGN UP
  • Head Office

    Somerfield House
    59 London Road
    Maidstone
    Kent
    ME16 8JH


    T: 01622 690691

  • Medway House

    81 London Road
    Maidstone
    Kent
    ME16 0DU

     

     


    T: 01622 690691

  • Canterbury Office

    First Floor
    Graylaw House
    20-22 Watling Street
    Canterbury
    Kent
    CT1 2UA


    T: 01227 949510