Summary
This article in The BMJ discusses the consequences for practising doctors of the 2015 Montgomery v Lanarkshire Case. The case was brought by Nadine Montgomery, a woman with diabetes and of small stature, after she delivered her son vaginally and experienced complications during the birth which resulted in her son having cerebal palsy. Her obstetrician had not disclosed the increased risk of this complication in vaginal delivery, despite Montgomery asking if the baby’s size was a potential problem. The Supreme Court ruling in her favour established that a patient should be told whatever they want to know, not what the doctor thinks they should be told.
Content
This article looks at the response of different groups to the 2015 ruling, the legal implications for doctors including retrospective cases and clinical concerns and ethical arguments. The authors conclude that the Montgomery ruling has not radically changed the process of consent; it has simply given appropriate recognition to patients as decision makers.
Recommended Comments
Create an account or sign in to comment