![[2025] EWHC 2025 (KB)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_AJKZXmE.png){kind=logo}
Consenting a patient to a procedure In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 , at [86] to [87] (“ Montgomery ”) the Supreme Court held in relation to the issue of appropriate consenting of a patient to a procedure
Consenting a patient to a procedure
In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board[2015] UKSC 11, at [86] to [87] (“Montgomery”) the Supreme Court held in relation to the issue of appropriate consenting of a patient to a procedure:
There is no reason to perpetuate the application of the Bolam test in this context any longer…The doctor is therefore under a duty 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. The test of materiality is whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person in the patient's position would be likely to attach significance to the risk, or the doctor is or should reasonably be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it.
At [89]-[90], their Lordships explained that:
….the assessment of whether a risk is material cannot be reduced to percentages. The significance of a given risk is likely to reflect a variety of factors besides its magnitude: for example, the nature of the risk, the effect which its occurrence would have on the life of the patient, the importance to the patient of the benefits sought to be achieved by the treatment, the alternatives available, and the risks involved in those alternatives. The assessment is therefore fact-sensitive, and sensitive also to the characteristics of the patient.
Secondly, the doctor's advisory role involves dialogue, the aim of which is to ensure that the patient understands the seriousness of her condition, and the anticipated benefits and risks of the proposed treatment and any reasonable alternatives, so that she is then in a position to make an informed decision. This role will only be performed effectively if the information provided is comprehensible. The doctor's duty is not therefore fulfilled by bombarding the patient with technical information which she cannot reasonably be expected to grasp, let alone by routinely demanding her signature on a consent form.
- Heading
- Ms Sarah Clarke KC Sitting as a Deputy Judge of the High Court
- Haemorrhoid grading system
- The issues to be decided in this trial
- Causation
- Burden and standard of proof
- Counsel
- The applicable law In Hunter v Hanley [1955] SC 200, at [204] (“ Hunter ”), Lord President Clyde held that: “…[a surgeon] is not negligent merely because his conclusion differs from that of other professional men, nor b
- In Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 583, at [587] (“ Bolam ”), Mr Justice McNair summarised the test as follows: “…[a surgeon] is not guilty of negligence if he has acted in a
- The House of Lords subsequently qualified the Bolam test in Bolitho v Hackney HA [1998] AC 232 (“ Bolitho ”), at [241H]-[242A] (Lord Browne-Wilkinson) by explaining that, “The use of these adjectives
- Consenting a patient to a procedure In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11 , at [86] to [87] (“ Montgomery ”) the Supreme Court held in relation to the issue of appropriate consenting of a patient to a procedure
- Where the advice given by the doctor for the purposes of consent is informed by clinical judgment, the approach described in Hunter and Bolam remains applicable to that exercise of clinical judgment (
- Causation In Chester v Afshar [2004] UKHL 41 (“Chester”), the majority of the House of Lords held that causation will be established not only in respect of a patient who would have declined the surgery if prope
- Section 16
- The approach to witness evidence generally
- The witnesses
- The claimant
- The defendant
- Expert evidence
- The claimant’s expert witness – Mr Michael Thompson (“Mr Thompson”)
- The defendant’s expert witness – Professor Robin Phillips (“Professor Phillips”)
- Relevant facts, evidence and findings
- The defendant
- The claimant’s history
- The claimant’s appointment with the Private GP
- The GP’s referral letter
- The first consultation with the defendant
- Flexible sigmoidoscopy procedure
- The second consultation with the defendant
- The process of grading the haemorrhoids
- Advice on treatment options and risks of surgery
- The operation
- The operation note and findings
- Letter of complaint
- Causation
- Submissions
- The defendant
- Discussion
- Issues 2 - If the claimant has not proved on the balance of probabilities that the defendant’s grading of her haemorrhoids as grade 2 / 3 was incorrect, then has the claimant established on the balanc
- Issues 3 - 4 – Causation
- Conclusions