In her lecture, Dr Sarah Devaney considered the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, which "held that a doctor must take reasonable care to ensure that a patient is aware of any material risks involved in any recommended treatment, and any reasonable alternative or variant treatments."

The abstract of her paper, titled 'The Far-Reaching Implications of Montgomery for Risk Disclosure in Practice', read:

"Broadly speaking, the provisions of the case which support patient autonomy have been welcomed, but this presentation argues that despite the apparent clarity the case brings to the question of disclosure to patients, clinicians are left with insufficient certainty as to how they should help patients to realise their autonomy in practice.

The seminar presents the findings of a project which considers the implications of Montgomery for practitioners and patients in the practical process of obtaining informed consent, analysing how Montgomery has been interpreted and applied by the courts in subsequent clinical negligence cases.

The findings demonstrate that, while the courts have provided some clarity on the application of Montgomery, there are a number of areas in which clinicians are left without firm guidance from either courts or regulators as to the extent of their duty in practice. We therefore make a call for professional regulators to provide detailed up to date guidance for the benefit of patients and practitioners alike."

Core themes that were addressed included the following:

• How the courts have extended the boundaries of Montgomery
• How the courts have limited the scope of Montgomery
• Implications for the consent process

Watch Dr Devaney’s full seminar on the CHLS Facebook page.