IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/hecopl/v12y2017i04p435-452_00.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Innovation, informed consent, health research and the Supreme Court: Montgomery v Lanarkshire – a brave new world?

Author

Listed:
  • Mchale, Jean V.

Abstract

The Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire ([2015] UKSC11) has been hailed as a landmark not least because the Court enshrines the doctrine of informed consent formally into English law for the first time in relation to medical treatment. This paper explores the decision in Montgomery. It examines what its implications may be in the future for the consent process in relation to health research and innovative treatment and whether it may prove a watershed moment leading to changing dialogues and expectations in relation to consent. First, the paper explores the concept of ‘informed consent’ in clinical research as seen through international, Council of Europe and EU instruments. Second, it considers how English law currently governs the provision of information to research participants in the context of clinical research. It questions whether such an approach will be sustainable in the future. Third, it discusses the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire and asks what might be the impact of this Supreme Court decision in the health research context. It asks whether Montgomery may result in new approaches to consent in health research and innovative treatment.

Suggested Citation

  • Mchale, Jean V., 2017. "Innovation, informed consent, health research and the Supreme Court: Montgomery v Lanarkshire – a brave new world?," Health Economics, Policy and Law, Cambridge University Press, vol. 12(4), pages 435-452, October.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:12:y:2017:i:04:p:435-452_00
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S174413311700010X/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Danny J N Wong & Steve Harris & Arun Sahni & James R Bedford & Laura Cortes & Richard Shawyer & Andrew M Wilson & Helen A Lindsay & Doug Campbell & Scott Popham & Lisa M Barneto & Paul S Myles & SNAP-, 2020. "Developing and validating subjective and objective risk-assessment measures for predicting mortality after major surgery: An international prospective cohort study," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(10), pages 1-22, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:hecopl:v:12:y:2017:i:04:p:435-452_00. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/hep .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.