header-logo header-logo

08 July 2016 / David Locke
Issue: 7706 / Categories: Features , Health & safety , Public , Professional negligence
printer mail-detail

NHS Trust: a risky business?

David Locke reviews the matter of informed consent, post Montgomery

  • The desire to provide the best care manifests in a wide and sometimes discordant view as to what constitutes informed consent–this article will review some of those arguments and discussions.

A fundamental aspect of the role of a defendant lawyer in the health sector is the dissemination of information concerning new medico-legal standards to health professionals. In that context, I am nearing the end of a long series of lectures to NHS and private health practitioners, addressing the issue of informed consent in the context of last year’s decision in Montgomery .

These lectures have provided an invaluable opportunity to engage with medical professionals. Unquestionably these all have the very best interests of their patients at heart. However, what has become apparent is that the desire to provide the best care manifests in a wide and sometimes discordant view as to what constitutes informed consent, ethically and legally, particularly with regard to the discussion of risks. This article will review

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

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

NLJ Career Profile: Ken Fowlie, Stowe Family Law

Ken Fowlie, chairman of Stowe Family Law, reflects on more than 30 years in legal services after ‘falling into law’

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Gardner Leader—Michelle Morgan & Catherine Morris

Regional law firm expands employment team with partner and senior associate hires

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Freeths—Carly Harwood & Tom Newton

Nottinghamtrusts, estates and tax team welcomes two senior associates

NEWS
Children can claim for ‘lost years’ damages in personal injury cases, the Supreme Court has held in a landmark judgment
The cab-rank rule remains a bulwark of the rule of law, yet lawyers are increasingly judged by their clients’ causes. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian McDougall, president of the LexisNexis Rule of Law Foundation, warns that conflating representation with endorsement is a ‘clear and present danger’
Holiday lets may promise easy returns, but restrictive covenants can swiftly scupper plans. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Francis of Serle Court recounts how covenants limiting use to a ‘private dwelling house’ or ‘private residence’ have repeatedly defeated short-term letting schemes
Artificial intelligence (AI) is already embedded in the civil courts, but regulation lags behind practice. Writing in NLJ this week, Ben Roe of Baker McKenzie charts a landscape where AI assists with transcription, case management and document handling, yet raises acute concerns over evidence, advocacy and even judgment-writing
The Supreme Court has drawn a firm line under branding creativity in regulated markets. In Dairy UK Ltd v Oatly AB, it ruled that Oatly’s ‘post-milk generation’ trade mark unlawfully deployed a protected dairy designation. In NLJ this week, Asima Rana of DWF explains that the court prioritised ‘regulatory clarity over creative branding choices’, holding that ‘designation’ extends beyond product names to marketing slogans
back-to-top-scroll