Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital [1985] UKHL 1 – Law Journals

Childbirth Injury: Liability issues

R S

Rushmi Sethi examines clinical negligence claims concerning childbirth injury ‘The doctor’s obligation, other than in cases where it would damage the patient’s welfare, was to present the material risks and uncertainties of different treatments, and to allow patients to make decisions that would affect their health and well-being on proper information.’ Relatively few childbirth injury …

Continue reading "Childbirth Injury: Liability issues"

This post is only available to members.

Patient Autonomy: Montgomery in action

Julian Matthews looks at recent case law on the issue of consent to medical treatment including the recent Court of Appeal decision of Webster ‘The judge had expressly found that there was an expectation that the consultant should have informed himself about the unusual combination of features and the potential risks arising from them.’Legal and …

Continue reading "Patient Autonomy: Montgomery in action"

This post is only available to members.

Eye Injuries: Getting the correct treatment

R S

Rushmi Sethi examines clinical negligence claims concerning ophthalmic injuries ‘A doctor is not negligent if there is another responsible body of medical opinion who would have acted in the same way as the treating clinician.’The purpose of this article is to consider the recent case law relating to eye injury claims, considering in particular the …

Continue reading "Eye Injuries: Getting the correct treatment"

This post is only available to members.

Consent: Doctor’s orders?

Paul Sankey looks at the recent case law concerning patients receiving care ‘The Supreme Court has rejected a clinician-centred and paternalistic approach to consent replacing paternalism with patient autonomy.’There have been a number of cases dealing with the law of consent to medical treatment over the last two years, the most notable of which is …

Continue reading "Consent: Doctor’s orders?"

This post is only available to members.

Patient Autonomy: Doctors’ duties in obtaining consent

Paul Sankey highlights the ongoing implications of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board ‘Patient autonomy has largely displaced paternalism. This is a significant shift in the law to reflect changes in contemporary culture.’ A very significant change in the law took place in March 2015 which has serious implications for doctors discussing options for treatment with …

Continue reading "Patient Autonomy: Doctors’ duties in obtaining consent"

This post is only available to members.

Treatment: Life after Montgomery

Sophie Beesley highlights the development of the ‘reasonable patient’ in recent cases concerning patient consent ‘Patients should not be bombarded with information, but helped to understand what matters or is likely to matter to them as individuals, beyond the pure percentages of risk. Dialogue is key.’ Consent to medical treatment is only valid if it …

Continue reading "Treatment: Life after Montgomery"

This post is only available to members.

Case Law: New grounds

Stephanie Prior reviews recent changes in personal injury and clinical negligence litigation ‘Montgomery is a move away from the test of a reasonable doctor and that of a reasonable patient.’ It has been an exciting period in the litigation world over the last year or so. This article will touch upon some of those changes …

Continue reading "Case Law: New grounds"

This post is only available to members.

Case Report: Montgomery (Appellant) v Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 11

Patients’ rights; doctors’ duties; consent test ‘Patients should no longer be viewed as uninformed, incapable of understanding medical matters, or wholly dependent upon a flow of information from doctors.’The appellant, Nadine Montgomery, sought damages on behalf of her catastrophically injured son, Sam, born on 1 October 1999 at Bellshill Maternity Hospital, Lanarkshire, alleging negligent care …

Continue reading "Case Report: Montgomery (Appellant) v Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent) [2015] UKSC 11"

This post is only available to members.

Clinical Negligence: What does a clinician have to tell the patient?

Julian Matthews looks at the case law and some recent illustrations ‘The touchstone for liability in clinical negligence claims remains the Bolam test, and Chester and Birch do not warrant a wholly different approach in cases concerning advice.’ The standard of care the law requires of a doctor has become well established using the terms …

Continue reading "Clinical Negligence: What does a clinician have to tell the patient?"

This post is only available to members.