INTRODUCTION
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board marked a significant change in the law relating to informed consent. It made clear that the test outlined by McNair J in Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee, that a doctor will not be negligent where they act in accordance with practice accepted as proper by a responsible body of doctors, was no longer apposite in assessing breach of duty for failing to disclose risks associated with treatments. This overruled Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital. Importantly, however, Lords Kerr and Reed opined that risk disclosure was not the only element of informed consent to which Montgomery applied. It was also engaged in the process of disclosing alternative treatments. Healthcare professionals (HCPs) are ‘under a duty to take reasonable care to ensure that the patient is aware of … any reasonable alternative or variant treatment’. However, following Montgomery, it was not clear precisely what a reasonable alternative treatment was …
€ (Westlaw)
Matthew Leitch, ‘Disclosing alternative treatments: towards a Bolam–Montgomery partnership’, Professional Negligence 40(3), 107-131 (2024).
Leave a Reply