Abstract:
In Montgomery vs Lanarkshire Health Board the UK Supreme Court prescribed some strong medicine for medical professionals. Sam Montgomery was born in October 1998 and it was not until 2015 that his case was finally resolved. Until the decision in Montgomery 'informed consent' was something of a myth, mirage or modern fairy tale. The concept had never really changed the fundamental character of the relationship with patients. Medical paternalism was the accepted norm. Patients routinely acquiesced to interventions rather than autonomously authorising them. This presentation examines the decision of the Supreme Court in Montgomery and the change it has made to the professional relationship. The decision at last brought the UK into line with the guidance of the GMC and the law in other common law jurisdictions such as Australia and Canada. Patients are now recognised as persons having the right to receive information to enable them to make their own choices. Medical paternalism no longer rules. It is argued that recognition of the rights of patients does not require an adversarial relationship. Respecting the rights of patients can in fact serve to build and reinforce a relationship built on trust and can promote better care.
Aims & Learning Objectives:
Aims & Learning Objectives:
SCIENTIFIC HOST ORGANIZATION
ITI International Team for Implantology
ITI Headquarters
Peter Merian-Weg 10
4052 Basel, Switzerland
By continuing to browse our site you agree to our use of cookies, revised Privacy Policy and Terms of Service.
More information about cookies