Consent in clinical negligence claims—treatment and causation

Produced in partnership with James Byrne of 9 Gough Square
Practice notes

Consent in clinical negligence claims—treatment and causation

Produced in partnership with James Byrne of 9 Gough Square

Practice notes
imgtext

This Practice Note deals with the principle of self-determination, valid consent, implied consent, sufficient information in accordance with Montgomery, and causation.

Treatment of a patient by a doctor requires prior consent in order to be lawful. This is so whether the treatment is a simple test or an invasive operation. In practice, issues of consent will only tend to arise following more serious and risky kinds of treatment such as surgery.

Every adult with the necessary mental capacity to make their own treatment decisions has the right to decide whether or not they will accept treatment, even if refusal risks permanent injury or death to them or their unborn child. Nor can that treatment be legitimised by detaining them as a mental patient.

For further consent issues such as emergency treatment, withdrawal of consent, capacity, professional guidance, battery and Human Rights Act 1998 claims, see Practice Note: Consent in clinical negligence claims—capacity and other issues.

The principle of self-determination

The principle of self-determination is fundamental to medical law and clinical negligence

Powered by Lexis+®
Jurisdiction(s):
United Kingdom
Key definition:
Negligence definition
What does Negligence mean?

Negligence is 'the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do' (Blythe v Birmingham Waterworks (1856) 11 Exch 781, at p 784). It is accepted that the test for breach of duty is objective, in the sense that the individual character and mental and physical features of the particular defendant are usually irrelevant.

Popular documents