ArticleHealth care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy2019
Between the Reasonable and the Particular: Deflating Autonomy in the Legal Regulation of Informed Consent to Medical Treatment.
Article in Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Prioritising time for communication in healthcare-a normative analysis.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2026Article
- Using consentless practices on medical wards-A qualitative study.Nursing ethics · 2026Article
- Large language models for surgical informed consent: an ethical perspective on simulated empathy.Journal of medical ethics · 2026Article
- AI-Driven Wearable Bioelectronics in Digital Healthcare.Biosensors · 2025Review
- Article
- Green bioethics, patient autonomy and informed consent in healthcare.Journal of medical ethics · 2024Article
- Exploring the Relationship between Shared Decision-Making, Patient-Centered Medicine, and Evidence-Based Medicine.The Linacre quarterly · 2021Article
- Article
- Review
- Ensuring Risk Awareness of Vulnerable Patients in the Post-Montgomery Era: Treading a Fine Line.Health care analysis : HCA : journal of health philosophy and policy · 2020Article
- The Rhetoric of the 'Passive Patient' in Indian Medical Negligence Cases.Asian bioethics review · 2019Article
- Is the capacity to consent different from the capacity to refuse treatments and procedures in adolescence?Jornal de pediatriaReview
- Involving Independent Mental Capacity Advocates (IMCAs) in Dental Care Decision-Making: A Qualitative Exploration of Dentists' Experiences in England and Wales.Special care in dentistry : official publication of the American Association of Hospital Dentists, the Academy of Dentistry for the Handicapped, and the American Society for Geriatric DentistryArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The law of informed consent to medical treatment has recently been extensively overhauled in England. The 2015 Montgomery judgment has done away with the long-held position that the information to be disclosed by doctors when obtaining valid consent from patients should be determined on the basis of what a reasonable body of medical opinion agree ought to be disclosed in the circumstances. The UK Supreme Court concluded that the information that is material to a patient's decision should instead be judged by reference to a new two-limbed test founded on the notions of the 'reasonable person' and the 'particular patient'. The rationale outlined in Montgomery for this new test of materiality, and academic comment on the ruling's significance, has focused on the central ethical importance that the law now (rightfully) accords to respect for patient autonomy in the process of obtaining consent from patients. In this paper, we dispute the claim that the new test of materiality articulated in Montgomery equates with respect for autonomy being given primacy in re-shaping the development of the law in this area. We also defend this position, arguing that our revised interpretation of Montgomery's significance does not equate with a failure by the courts to give due legal consideration to what is owed to patients as autonomous decision-makers in the consent process. Instead, Montgomery correctly implies that doctors are ethically (and legally) obliged to attend to a number of relevant ethical considerations in framing decisions about consent to treatment, which include subtle interpretations of the values of autonomy and well-being. Doctors should give appropriate consideration to how these values are fleshed out and balanced in context in order to specify precisely what information ought to be disclosed to a patient as a requirement of obtaining consent, and as a core component of shared decision-making within medical encounters more generally.
Indexed as
Identifiers
29961214What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.