Abstract
In Hii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2) National Cancer Centre, the Singapore Court of Appeal followed the approach of other Commonwealth jurisdictions by rejecting the application of Bolam as the standard of disclosure in claims concerning informed consent to medical treatment. Instead, the court employed a modified version of the standard of disclosure adopted in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. While broadly welcomed, Montgomery has been criticised for its lack of clarity on the application of some elements of its disclosure standard. In particular, questions remain as to: what factors should be taken into account within the reasonable and particular patient limbs of the test of materiality; how will the ‘reasonableness’ of alternative treatments be determined; and what is the scope of the therapeutic exception. This case commentary explores how Hii’s analysis of the modified standard offers insights into how those elements of Montgomery could be interpreted in the future.
Highlights
In 2017, the Singapore Court of Appeal followed the approach of other Commonwealth jurisdictions by rejecting the application of Bolam1 to claims concerning informed consent
In Hii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2) National Cancer Centre, the Singapore Court of Appeal followed the approach of other Commonwealth jurisdictions by rejecting the application of Bolam as the standard of disclosure in claims concerning informed consent to medical treatment
Whilst the court in Hii recognised the need to move towards a patient-centric standard of disclosure, they saw the medical profession as still having a role to play in assessing what information should be given to patients
Summary
In 2017, the Singapore Court of Appeal followed the approach of other Commonwealth jurisdictions by rejecting the application of Bolam to claims concerning informed consent. In Hii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2) National Cancer Centre (‘Hii’), the Singapore court said that the Bolam standard was doctor-centred as it focused upon whether a responsible body of medical opinion would have given the advice. Whilst the court in Hii recognised the need to move towards a patient-centric standard of disclosure, they saw the medical profession as still having a role to play in assessing what information should be given to patients.. My analysis illustrates that whilst Hii aids the interpretation of some of these issues, the role Bolam may play in future cases remains unclear, despite the Supreme Court’s unequivocal rejection of it in Montgomery. There remains a lack of guidance for doctors on how information should be communicated
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