Professor Emma Cave emma.cave@durham.ac.uk
Professor
The Ill-Informed: Consent to Medical Treatment and the Therapeutic Exception
Cave, Emma
Authors
Abstract
Affirming the doctrine of informed consent, the UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire HB belatedly followed the Australian decision of Rogers v Whitaker, decoupling the duty to inform patients about the material risks of medical treatment from Bolam. The underlying commitment to patient autonomy coincides with a wider body of medical law that protects the right of capacitous adult patients to make treatment decisions, even if others consider those decisions bizarre and even if they will cause the patient serious harm. It is seemingly anomalous, therefore, that the Supreme Court in Montgomery referred to a ‘therapeutic exception’, as this suggests an underlying paternalistic approach. Contrary to this view, international examples suggest that a therapeutic exception does not necessarily conflict with commitment to patient autonomy. In some countries, the exception mitigates the effects of a broadly objective test of materiality by enabling clinicians in exceptional circumstances to protect the autonomy interests of the particular patient. In others, it protects those incapable of an autonomous decision from harm. In England and Wales, however, alternative mechanisms can be interpreted to protect such patients from harm. On this basis it is argued that the therapeutic exception is obfuscatory, unnecessary and unjustified.
Citation
Cave, E. (2017). The Ill-Informed: Consent to Medical Treatment and the Therapeutic Exception. Common Law World Review, 46(2), 140-168. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779517709452
Journal Article Type | Article |
---|---|
Acceptance Date | Apr 21, 2017 |
Online Publication Date | Jun 29, 2017 |
Publication Date | Jun 29, 2017 |
Deposit Date | Apr 21, 2017 |
Publicly Available Date | Apr 21, 2017 |
Journal | Common Law World Review |
Print ISSN | 1473-7795 |
Electronic ISSN | 1740-5556 |
Publisher | SAGE Publications |
Peer Reviewed | Peer Reviewed |
Volume | 46 |
Issue | 2 |
Pages | 140-168 |
DOI | https://doi.org/10.1177/1473779517709452 |
Keywords | consent, disclosure, Montgomery, therapeutic exception |
Public URL | https://durham-repository.worktribe.com/output/1389033 |
Files
Published Journal Article
(343 Kb)
PDF
Publisher Licence URL
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
Accepted Journal Article
(682 Kb)
PDF
Copyright Statement
This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
You might also like
The infected blood scandal: lessons for clinical research.
(2024)
Journal Article
Liability For Rugby Related Neuro-Degenerative Disease: A Question of Tort
(2024)
Journal Article
Infected blood scandal – what you need to know
(2024)
Newspaper / Magazine
A Future Orientated View of Autonomy
(2023)
Book Chapter
Downloadable Citations
About Durham Research Online (DRO)
Administrator e-mail: dro.admin@durham.ac.uk
This application uses the following open-source libraries:
SheetJS Community Edition
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
PDF.js
Apache License Version 2.0 (http://www.apache.org/licenses/)
Font Awesome
SIL OFL 1.1 (http://scripts.sil.org/OFL)
MIT License (http://opensource.org/licenses/mit-license.html)
CC BY 3.0 ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
Powered by Worktribe © 2024
Advanced Search