Inspire MediLaw Webinar – “Conversations on Consent”
*Inspire MediLaw event*
Join Inspire MediLaw’s ‘Conversations on Consent’ webinar on 15 June (4pm to 6pm) for all the latest information. They’ll help you navigate through this minefield so you can understand what informed consent means in your everyday practice.
You’ll hear from Nadine Montgomery whose remarkable landmark court case on informed consent changed the law in the UK, and Ampersand’s Lauren Sutherland QC who was part of the legal team. The panel of legal and medical experts will discuss best practice and answer all your questions.
The webinar is suitable for all clinicians and healthcare professionals regardless of specialty or stage of career. It will also be relevant to lawyers with an interest in medical law.
You will learn how to:
- Determine what information your patient needs to make an informed decision
- identify what constitutes material risk
- have constructive discussions around consent
- apply therapeutic exceptions
- manage consent in time-critical situations
Agenda for the webinar:
- How my case changed the law – Nadine Montgomery
- The journey to the Supreme Court – Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board – Lauren Sutherland QC
- Patient consent and the law – Mr Paul Sankey, Medical Negligence Lawyer, Enable Law
- Our medical and legal panel discuss best practice, case studies and shared experiences of the consent process.
- Your questions on consent (from SLIDO)
The clinical landscape is changing every day. Now, more than ever, you’ll want to know where you stand on informed consent. But the legal framework is hugely complex and there are many potential pitfalls.
The Supreme Court case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board in 2015 was a lengthy judgment with numerous comments of relevance by the Law Lords. Much of the verdict seems to simply reflect the old principles – “An adult person of sound mind is entitled to decide which, if any, of the available forms of treatment to undergo, and her consent must be obtained before treatment interfering with her bodily integrity is undertaken”. However, the Montgomery case is significant because of the way the court defined what is a “material risk”. Before this, the test had been a purely objective one and to an extent Montgomerystill retains aspects of that – “Whether, in the circumstances of the particular case, a reasonable person in the patient’s position would be likely to attach significance to the risk …” but the Law Lords then added a subjective test as well – “… or the doctor is or should be aware that the particular patient would be likely to attach significance to it”.
This is not the end of the consent story but just the end of the beginning. Opposing lawyers for patients and hospitals will still press for their preferred definitions of “should be”, “likely to” and precisely what constitutes “significance”. This is your opportunity to ask the panel for clarification on these questions.
The session will be recorded, if you’re unable to make it, you can still watch the recording at a more convenient time (once booked).
Book your place via Inspire Medilaw here.