IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/medlaw/v29y2021i4p595-612..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Challenging the Comparison in Montgomery Between Patients and ‘Consumers Exercising Choices’

Author

Listed:
  • Emily Jackson

Abstract

In Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, Lords Kerr and Reed referred to the increasing tendency to treat patients ‘as consumers exercising choices’. The question of whether it is helpful to regard patients as consumers is not a new one, but it arises most frequently in discussions about the commercialisation of healthcare. Comparing patients with consumers in relation to informed consent is an interesting development, especially in the light of the growing body of contract and consumer law scholarship which questions the extent to which information disclosures to consumers produce informed choices. If there is evidence that the duties of disclosure which are imposed on retailers, in order to redress the imbalance of knowledge and power in the consumer–retailer relationship, do not always fulfil their intended purpose, might this have any resonance for the duties of disclosure which are imposed upon healthcare professionals?

Suggested Citation

  • Emily Jackson, 2021. "Challenging the Comparison in Montgomery Between Patients and ‘Consumers Exercising Choices’," Medical Law Review, Oxford University Press, vol. 29(4), pages 595-612.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:4:p:595-612.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/medlaw/fwab031
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    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:oup:medlaw:v:29:y:2021:i:4:p:595-612.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/medlaw .

    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.