Abstract
In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 the Supreme Court redefined the standard of disclosure in informed consent to medical treatment, rejecting the application of the doctor-focused Bolam standard in favour of one focused on what was significant to patients. In Grimstone v Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust [2015] EWHC 3756 (QB), despite acknowledging a new standard now applied, McGowan J nevertheless used the Bolam test to determine liability for non-disclosure. This illustrates ongoing judicial deference to the medical profession and this case commentary explores that decision and its implications.
Highlights
In 2015, in the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, the Supreme Court redefined the standard of disclosure for informed consent to medical treatment, stating that there was ‘no reason to perpetuate the application of the Bolam test in this context any longer’.1 The Bolam case held that a doctor’s standard of care is to be VC The Author 2017
In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 the Supreme Court redefined the standard of disclosure in informed consent to medical treatment, rejecting the application of the doctor-focused Bolam standard in favour of one focused on what was significant to patients
It suggests that persisting judicial attitudes of deference to the medical profession could undermine Montgomery’s impact so that medical opinion, rather than patient’s interests, continue to define what information should be disclosed
Summary
In 2015, in the case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, the Supreme Court redefined the standard of disclosure for informed consent to medical treatment, stating that there was ‘no reason to perpetuate the application of the Bolam test in this context any longer’.1 The Bolam case held that a doctor’s standard of care is to be. Grimstone v Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust was one of the first opportunities for the High Court to apply the redefined standard; yet, despite the Supreme Court’s express rejection of Bolam in this context, McGowan J applied the Bolam test ( without explicit reference to it) when reaching her decision.9 This suggests a persisting judicial deference to the medical profession, which is supported by the construction of the judgment. Mrs Montgomery was entitled to have been told of the risk of shoulder dystocia and the alternative of caesarean section as a means of delivery.18 Eight months after this judgment was handed down, the case of Grimstone was heard before McGowan J in the High Court.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call