One of the most important commentary pieces I've ever read on informed consent law. Equally so re judicial deference to doctors: "This approach is in line with Bolam rather than Montgomery & reflects her failure to take on board that the landscape of informed consent has shifted"https://twitter.com/louise_austin12/status/935090031340982272 …
>> "This was because she (wrongly, in the opinion of this author) focused on the question of information given about the risks of the surgical procedure itself, rather than what was (or was not) disclosed" > Another one of so many quotes of significance in this piece,
-
-
>> "McGowan J then concludes she prefers Professor Field’s evidence to Mrs Grimstone’s because her ‘recollection is unclear and unreliable’ whereas his evidence was based on ‘the recorded versions’ present in the medical records" > Hugely significant point vs 'weeding/seeding'
Show this thread -
>> Montgomery was one of the most important developments in consent law in recent years. For this early test case to ignore it & revert to Bolam is outrageous. But it also shows more generally how pervasive the so-called 'medical expert' can be in influencing a judgement, imho.
Show this thread
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.