The Physician's Duty to Warn Their Patients About the Risks Associated with Medical Intervention: A Review and Discussion

Abstract

Since the landmark case of Montgomery v Lanarkshire in 2015¹, much has been written in medical press regarding the implications for medical practice. The moral duty - varied though it has been over this time, has been discussed since the earliest days of the medical profession. The law has sought to define this duty in response to changes in society, and the nature of the relationship between doctor and patient. The moral and legal duty are intrinsically linked, but the latter must surely follow the former for "the law has little to do with morally required forms of communication in the clinic and in the research environment."² The common law nature of this process has resulted in an inconsistent and often tortuous path as societal standards have shifted. Accordingly, the ultimate definition of the legal doctrine, "informed consent," has changed since its relatively recent entry into the medicolegal vocabulary. These parallel shifts in the legal and moral duty to disclose risk have resulted in a confusing melee of evidence and recommendations for clinicians. We address the development of the law of "informed consent," as the legal mirror of the moral duty upon a clinician to disclose risk to their patient.

Keywords: Consent; Ethics; Medicolegal.