'Grimstone v Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals NHS Trust': (it's not) hip to be square
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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Medical law review 2018-11, Vol.26 (4), p.665-674 |
---|---|
1. Verfasser: | |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | 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. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0967-0742 1464-3790 |
DOI: | 10.1093/medlaw/fwx053 |