Informed Consent Comes to Britain

Michael Hadskis, Vaughan Black

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    Abstract

    The judgment earlier this year of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom in Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board' has been described by British commentators as a "landmark decision" and "the most important clinical negligence case in 30 . . . years". Its significance in Canada will be considerably less than that. This is not only because U.K. court decisions, influential though they sometimes still are, lack any direct authority here, but also because the case articulates a position that Canadian courts arrived at 35 years ago in Reibl v. Hughes. Montgomery's principal holding is that in determining what information about treatment options doctors must convey to their patients in order to ensure valid consent courts should look not to the practice of physicians but to the legitimate expectations of patients.

    Original languageCanadian English
    JournalArticles, Book Chapters, & Popular Press
    Publication statusPublished - Jan. 1 2015

    Keywords

    • Supreme Court of the United Kingdom
    • Montgomery v Lanakshire Health Board
    • Clinical Negligence
    • Medical Information
    • Patient Expectations
    • Informed Consent

    Disciplines

    • Health Law and Policy
    • Law
    • Torts

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'Informed Consent Comes to Britain'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this