Consent for Medical Treatment: What is 'Reasonable'?

Abstract

The General Medical Council (GMC) instructs doctors to act 'reasonably' in obtaining consent from patients. However, the GMC does not explain what it means to be reasonable: it is left to doctors to figure out the substance of this instruction. The GMC relies on the Supreme Court's judgment in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board; and it can be assumed that the judges' idea of reasonability is adopted. The aim of this paper is to flesh out this idea of reasonability. This idea is commonly personified as the audience that has to be satisfied by the doctor's justification for offering, or withholding, certain treatments and related information. In case law, this audience shifted from a reasonable doctor to a 'reasonable person in the patient's position'; and Montgomery expands the audience to include 'particular' patients, too. Senior judges have clarified that the reasonable person is a normative ideal, and not a sociological construct; but they do not set out the characteristics of this ideal. John Rawls has conceived the reasonable person-ideal as one that pursues fair terms of co-operation with other members of society. An alternative ideal can be inferred from the feminist ethic of care. However, the reasonable patient from Montgomery does not align with either theoretical ideal; but, instead, is an entirely rational being. Such a conception conflicts with both real-life constraints on rationality and the doctor's duty to care for the patient, and it challenges the practice of medicine.

Keywords: Bolam; Montgomery v Lanarkshire; Clinical negligence; General Medical Council; Informed consent; Test of materiality.