header-logo header-logo

NHS Trust: a risky business?

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

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

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