Informed Consent

Informed Consent Case

However, in 2015 Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board changes the way we view these cases. In 1999 Mrs Montgomery gave birth to a baby boy. As a diabetic of small stature, and being aware that babies of diabetic mothers can be larger than average, Mrs Montgomery expressed concern about her ability to deliver the baby vaginally. Mrs Montgomery was reassured by her doctor that all would be well. In fact there was a 10% risk of shoulder dystocia and the potential to avoid this risk by arranging delivery by way of elective caesarean section, but Mrs Montgomery was not warned about the risk or told about the alternative options.

During the delivery the baby’s shoulder became stuck, there was a 12 minute delay in freeing him and he suffered a brain injury and paralysis of an arm as a result. Mrs Montgomery successfully argued that she ought to have been told of the risks and alternative treatment option, that if she had been told she would have elected for caesarean section, and that this would have avoided her son’s injuries.

The Supreme Court held that a doctor must make patients aware of any risks that a reasonable patient would think were material, and of reasonable alternative treatments that could avoid or minimise that risk.

Materiality is measured by whether a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to it, or if the practitioner is or should reasonably be aware that the patient is likely to attach significance to it. Each case will therefore turn on its own facts because there is now an objective test focussing on what a reasonable patient would have regarded as material.

Contact Our Medical Negligence Solicitors

If you have concerns about lacking informed consent for a medical procedure undertaken within the last three years and you would like to enquire as to whether you might have a Medical Negligence claim please call 0161 785 3500 or email us at enquiries@pearsonlegal.co.uk