Medical Treatment: Decisions and the Law

1. Consent – General

Update on Thefaut v Johnson, para 1.26, page 18:

Christopher Johnston QC


In Spencer v Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust[1] it was determined that the Montgomery approach to informed consent was simply a variant of Bolam and that the test was: would the ‘ordinary sensible patient’ feel justifiably aggrieved at not being provided with the information in issue. In Thefaut v Johnson[2] Green J (correctly in the authors’ view) rejected that approach, indicating that it failed to give sufficient weight to the subjective – and patient-centric – approach required by the Supreme Court in Montgomery.[3]

Update to main text para 1.25 fn3, page 18: 

Christopher Johnston QC


For guidance on consent see the Royal College of Surgeons’ Consent: Supported Decision-Making – a good practice guide:  which notes:

‘The surgeon discussing treatment with the patient should be suitably trained and qualified to provide the treatment in question and have sufficient knowledge of the associated risks and complications, as well as any alternative treatments available for the patient’s condition’

Updates by Paragraph order

You can read selected extracts from this chapter here.

Return to index