Health Care Analysis 27 (2):110-127 (2019)

Authors
Abstract
The law of informed consent to medical treatment has recently been extensively overhauled in England. The 2015 Montgomery judgment has done away with the long-held position that the information to be disclosed by doctors when obtaining valid consent from patients should be determined on the basis of what a reasonable body of medical opinion agree ought to be disclosed in the circumstances. The UK Supreme Court concluded that the information that is material to a patient’s decision should instead be judged by reference to a new two-limbed test founded on the notions of the ‘reasonable person’ and the ‘particular patient’. The rationale outlined in Montgomery for this new test of materiality, and academic comment on the ruling’s significance, has focused on the central ethical importance that the law now accords to respect for patient autonomy in the process of obtaining consent from patients. In this paper, we dispute the claim that the new test of materiality articulated in Montgomery equates with respect for autonomy being given primacy in re-shaping the development of the law in this area. We also defend this position, arguing that our revised interpretation of Montgomery’s significance does not equate with a failure by the courts to give due legal consideration to what is owed to patients as autonomous decision-makers in the consent process. Instead, Montgomery correctly implies that doctors are ethically obliged to attend to a number of relevant ethical considerations in framing decisions about consent to treatment, which include subtle interpretations of the values of autonomy and well-being. Doctors should give appropriate consideration to how these values are fleshed out and balanced in context in order to specify precisely what information ought to be disclosed to a patient as a requirement of obtaining consent, and as a core component of shared decision-making within medical encounters more generally.
Keywords No keywords specified (fix it)
Categories (categorize this paper)
ISBN(s)
DOI 10.1007/s10728-018-0358-x
Options
Edit this record
Mark as duplicate
Export citation
Find it on Scholar
Request removal from index
Revision history

Download options

PhilArchive copy


Upload a copy of this paper     Check publisher's policy     Papers currently archived: 69,160
External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server
Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy)
Through your library

References found in this work BETA

View all 7 references / Add more references

Citations of this work BETA

Add more citations

Similar books and articles

Autonomy, Consent and the Law.Sheila McLean - 2009 - Routledge-Cavendish.
On Taylor on Autonomy and Informed Consent.Jukka Varelius - 2006 - Journal of Value Inquiry 40 (4):451-459.
Autonomy and Negatively Informed Consent.Ulrik Kihlbom - 2008 - Journal of Medical Ethics 34 (3):146-9.
Informed Consent, Autonomy, and the Law.David B. Annis - 1984 - Philosophy Research Archives 10:249-259.
Informed Consent, Autonomy, and the Law.David B. Annis - 1984 - Philosophy Research Archives 10:249-259.
Forced to Be Free? Increasing Patient Autonomy by Constraining It.Neil Levy - 2014 - Journal of Medical Ethics 40 (5):293-300.

Analytics

Added to PP index
2018-07-01

Total views
22 ( #510,603 of 2,499,415 )

Recent downloads (6 months)
1 ( #418,166 of 2,499,415 )

How can I increase my downloads?

Downloads

My notes