“Supreme Court revolutionises medical consent law with patient-centred approach”
Mrs Montgomery, a diabetic woman of short stature, was not informed by her doctor of the risks of shoulder dystocia during vaginal delivery or the option of caesarean section. During delivery, her baby suffered shoulder dystocia resulting in cerebral palsy. Mrs Montgomery sued for negligence, claiming inadequate information about risks and treatment options.
Whether the Bolam test should apply to determine what information doctors must provide to patients about treatment risks and alternatives, or whether a different standard focused on patient autonomy should apply.
The Supreme Court held that the Bolam test does not apply to advice about treatment risks. Doctors must inform patients of material risks and reasonable alternatives. A risk is material if a reasonable person in the patient's position would be likely to attach significance to it, or if the doctor knows the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it.
This landmark decision fundamentally changed medical law by prioritising patient autonomy over medical paternalism and establishing clearer duties of disclosure. It has significantly impacted medical practice and the doctor-patient relationship throughout the UK.
You're reading the free summary of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. Create a free account to unlock the full reasoning, the cited authorities and the verbatim judgment — plus structured briefs for 412,000+ UK judgments.
No card required. Free forever.
OSCOLA Citation
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11, [2015] AC 1430
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Falls back to Google for old citations BAILII catalogues separately
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.