- Royal College of Surgeons’ guidance signals end to paternalistic approach
- Original news
- The RCS guidance follows a Supreme Court judgment from 2015, Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. Why did this particular judgment prompt the RCS to publish the guidance?
- What primary problems does the RCS’s guidance identify in the report?
- What do you mean by ‘over-excited about the impact of Montgomery’? Isn’t it an important decision?
- To what extent are the problems addressed in Montgomery
- responsible for the dramatic increase in costly litigation cases and compensation payouts in the UK
Personal Injury analysis: Charles Foster, barrister at Serjeants’ Inn Chambers, argues that new guidance issued by the Royal College of Surgeons (RCS) adds little of substance to the guidance previously issued by the General Medical Council (GMC) and, apart from being rather over-excited about the impact of Montgomery, is fairly commonsensical.
Sign in or take a trial to read the full analysis.
To continue reading this news article, as well as thousands of others like it, sign in to LexisPSL or register for a free trial