‘Bolam’ to ‘Montgomery’ is result of evolutionary change of medical practice towards ‘patient-centred care’
Author(s)
Date Issued
2017
Publisher
Oxford University Press
Journal
Postgraduate Medical Journal
Volume
93
Issue
1095
Start page
46
End page
50
Abstract
The Supreme Court judgement in ‘Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board’ has caused a change in the law concerning the duty of doctors on disclosure of information to patients regarding risks. The law now requires a doctor to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and of any reasonable alternative or variant treatments. Are doctors totally removed from the protective shield even if the practice is accepted by a reasonable body of medical opinion previously laid down by ‘Bolam’ with the recent Supreme Court decision in the ‘Montgomery’ case? This paper questions whether the ‘Bolam’ principle needs to be discarded or re-interpreted in the modern context of health care. Adopting ‘patient-centred’ care to unfold the ‘significant risks’ attached to patients would align with the evolving changes in medical law. It should be the changing context of health care driving the evolving change of law.
SFU Affiliated Publication
No
Availability at SFU Library
No database links found.