header-logo header-logo

The last word on consent?

02 April 2015 / Charles Foster
Issue: 7647 / Categories: Features , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail
nlj_7647_charles-foster

Montgomery is the belated obituary, not the death knell, of medical paternalism, says Charles Foster

Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, [2015] All ER (D) 113 (Mar) concerned a pregnant diabetic patient who was not warned by her consultant obstetrician about the risk that her baby, being large relative to the size of the mother’s pelvis, would have shoulder dystocia. The obstetrician thought that the mother would, if given the relevant statistics about the risk, opt for a Caesarean section. That, the obstetrician decided, would not be in the mother’s best interests: the mother would, in effect, make an objectively wrong decision about the risks of serious injury. By not providing the information, the obstetrician was protecting the patient against her own irrationality. The Supreme Court decided that, even though there were some obstetricians who would adopt that approach, the health board that employed the obstetrician was liable. The Bolam test had no place in the consideration of such cases. It adopted wholesale the decision of the High Court of

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll