Montgomery v Lanarkshire health board: Implications of the supreme court ruling for psychiatry

Abstract

In ruling in favour of Nadine Montgomery in her claim of negligence against Lanarkshire Health Board, the Supreme Court changed the law in matters of informed consent. Having previously relied on the Bolam test of the professional opinion of medical peers, the information doctors must disclose to their patients is now determined by a much more patient-centred test. Despite this, it is not clear how, if at all, the ruling affects modern medical practice. In this article, the implications of the Supreme Court’s ruling for psychiatry are considered. It is unlikely the ruling will alter day-to-day clinical practice. It does, however, serve to highlight and reinforce key principles of good psychiatric practice.