Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL)’s Post

It’s been nearly a decade since the landmark Supreme Court judgment in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 reshaped patient consent in medical treatment. This pivotal decision emphasised the necessity for doctors to ensure patients are fully informed about the material risks and alternatives related to their treatments, writes Max Cosstick for the latest issue of PI Focus. The Montgomery ruling underscored that patients must be aware of any material risks involved in recommended treatments and any reasonable alternatives. This principle is grounded in the notion of bodily autonomy and the right to informed consent, transforming the dynamic between patients and healthcare providers. Since Montgomery, the legal landscape has continued to evolve. Recent cases like Sidra Bilal & Hassaan Aziz Malik v St George’s University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and CNZ v Royal Bath Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust have further refined what constitutes reasonable alternative treatments and underscored the importance of patient choice, particularly in childbirth settings. The latest General Medical Council guidelines echo Montgomery’s ethos, outlining seven principles of decision-making and consent, ensuring that patient autonomy remains central to medical care. This post was merely a summary of one of the many insightful articles to be read in PI Focus – APIL’s bi-monthly member magazine. If you like what you’ve read, and want to read more fascinating articles from experts across the PI sector, join APIL today to access your PI Focus magazine: https://bit.ly/3Hd6Rkw #PIFocus #MedicalLaw #PatientConsent #ClinicalNegligence #Montgomery

  • No alternative text description for this image

To view or add a comment, sign in

Explore topics