File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Links for fulltext
(May Require Subscription)
- Publisher Website: 10.1093/medlaw/fwz023
- Scopus: eid_2-s2.0-85086346468
- PMID: 31504791
- Find via
Supplementary
- Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Think of the children: Liability for non-disclosure of information post-montgomery
Title | Think of the children: Liability for non-disclosure of information post-montgomery |
---|---|
Authors | |
Keywords | Battery Children Disclosure Informed consent Montgomery Negligence Non-disclosure |
Issue Date | 2020 |
Citation | Medical Law Review, 2020, v. 28, n. 2, p. 270-292 How to Cite? |
Abstract | In 2015, the Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board handed down a landmark decision on informed consent to medical treatment, heralding a legal shift to a more patient-centred approach. Montgomery, and the extensive commentary that has followed, focuses on 'adult persons of sound mind'. Cave and Purshouse consider the potential claims that may flow from a failure to adequately inform children. They argue that the relevance of the best interests test blurs the boundaries between negligence and battery. Limitations on children's rights to make treatment decisions for themselves impact on their potential to claim in negligence for non-disclosure and, conversely, enhance the potential relevance of the tort of battery. In paediatric cases, Montgomery raises expectations that the law is currently ill-equipped to satisfy. Tort law provides a legal incentive to disclose relevant information to children but limits the availability of a remedy. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/344497 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 1.8 2023 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.545 |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Cave, Emma | - |
dc.contributor.author | Purshouse, Craig | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2024-07-31T03:03:54Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2024-07-31T03:03:54Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2020 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Medical Law Review, 2020, v. 28, n. 2, p. 270-292 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0967-0742 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/344497 | - |
dc.description.abstract | In 2015, the Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board handed down a landmark decision on informed consent to medical treatment, heralding a legal shift to a more patient-centred approach. Montgomery, and the extensive commentary that has followed, focuses on 'adult persons of sound mind'. Cave and Purshouse consider the potential claims that may flow from a failure to adequately inform children. They argue that the relevance of the best interests test blurs the boundaries between negligence and battery. Limitations on children's rights to make treatment decisions for themselves impact on their potential to claim in negligence for non-disclosure and, conversely, enhance the potential relevance of the tort of battery. In paediatric cases, Montgomery raises expectations that the law is currently ill-equipped to satisfy. Tort law provides a legal incentive to disclose relevant information to children but limits the availability of a remedy. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Medical Law Review | - |
dc.subject | Battery | - |
dc.subject | Children | - |
dc.subject | Disclosure | - |
dc.subject | Informed consent | - |
dc.subject | Montgomery | - |
dc.subject | Negligence | - |
dc.subject | Non-disclosure | - |
dc.title | Think of the children: Liability for non-disclosure of information post-montgomery | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.description.nature | link_to_subscribed_fulltext | - |
dc.identifier.doi | 10.1093/medlaw/fwz023 | - |
dc.identifier.pmid | 31504791 | - |
dc.identifier.scopus | eid_2-s2.0-85086346468 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 28 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | 2 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 270 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 292 | - |
dc.identifier.eissn | 1464-3790 | - |