Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Clinical
  • Published:

Patient choice: the shape of consent post-Montgomery

British Dental Journal volume 234, pages 655–659 (2023)Cite this article

Abstract

The law relating to consent and the process dentists need to go through to gain valid and informed consent to treat patients changed significantly following the landmark ruling of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. In this paper, we revisit the history of patient consent, give an update on the current legal situation in the UK, and produce a unique 'consent workflow' to aid in the process of gaining valid and informed consent to treat. The aim is to clarify the legal standing and provide a framework that dentists and other healthcare professionals can adapt to their current clinical practice while increasing the confidence of those involved in the consent process; both professionals and patients.

Key points

  • Provides an overview of the current legal position regarding consent to treat.

  • Describes the consent process in detail.

  • Introduces a unique workflow to aid in gaining valid and informed consent in practice.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Sidaway v Bethlem Royal Hospital Governors [1985] WLR2 871. 1985.

  2. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] WLR 1 582. 1957.

  3. Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] WLR 2 768. 2015.

  4. Bolitho v City and Hackney Health Authority [1998] AC 232. 1998.

  5. Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trust [1999] ECC 167. 1999.

  6. Wyatt v Curtis [2003] EWCA Civ1779. 2003.

  7. Chester v Afshar [2004] WLR 3 927. 2004.

  8. Hopp v Lepp [1980] 2 SCR 192. 1980.

  9. Rebid v Hughes [1980]2 SCR 880. 1980.

  10. Rogers v Whitaker [1992] 109 AL 625. 1992.

  11. UK Government. Mental Capacity Act 2005. 2005. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/9/pdfs/ukpga_20050009_en.pdf (accessed July 2022).

  12. PH and A Local Authority v Z Limited & R [2011] EWHC 1704. 2011.

  13. A NHS Trust v X [2014] EWCOP 35. 2014.

  14. A Local Authority v TZ [2013] EWHC 2322. 2013.

  15. PC v City of York Council [2013] EWCA Civ 478. 2013.

  16. An NHS Trust v CS [2016] EWCOP 10. 2016.

  17. Wandsworth CGC v IA [2014] EWHC 990. 2014.

  18. British Medical Association. Mental Capacity Act toolkit. Available at https://www.bma.org.uk/advice-and-support/ethics/adults-who-lack-capacity/mental-capacity-act-toolkit (accessed July 2022).

  19. UK Government. Adults with Incapacity (Scotland) Act 2000. 2000. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/4/contents (accessed July 2022).

  20. Scottish Government. Communication and Assessing Capacity: A guide for social work and health care staff. 2008. Available at https://www.gov.scot/binaries/content/documents/govscot/publications/advice-and-guidance/2008/02/adults-incapacity-scotland-act-2000-communication-assessing-capacity-guide-social-work-health-care-staff/documents/0055759-pdf/0055759-pdf/govscot%3Adocument/0055759.pdf (accessed July 2022).

  21. UK Government. Mental Capacity Act (Northern Ireland) 2016. 2016. Available at https://www.legislation.gov.uk/nia/2016/18/contents/enacted (accessed July 2022).

  22. D'Cruz L. Legal Aspects of Dental Practice. London: Churchill Livingstone, 2009.

  23. Schloendorff v Society of New York Hospital [1914] 211 NY 125. 1914.

  24. Sutherland L. A Guide to Consent in Clinical Negligence Post-Montgomery. Somerset: Law Brief Publishing, 2018.

  25. D'Cruz L. Kaney H. Consent - a new era begins. Br Dent J 2015; 219: 57-59.

  26. Herring J, Fulford K, Dunn M, Handa A. Elbow Room for Best Practice? Montgomery, Patients' values, and Balanced Decision-Making in Person-Centred Clinical Care. Med Law Rev 2017; 24: 582-603.

  27. Videto v Kennedy [1981] 125 DLR 127. 1981.

  28. Mrs A v East Kent Hospitals University NHS Foundation Trust [2015] EWHC 1038. 2015.

  29. Bright E, D'Cruz L, Milne E. Consent - an update. Br Dent J 2017; 222: 655-657.

  30. Royal College of Surgeons. Consent: Supported Decision-Making - a guide to good practice. 2016. Available at https://www.rcseng.ac.uk/-/media/files/rcs/library-and-publications/non-journal-publications/consent_2016_combined-p2.pdf (accessed July 2022).

  31. General Medical Council. Good medical practice. 2014. Available at https://www.gmc-uk.org/-/media/documents/good-medical-practice---english-20200128_pdf-51527435.pdf (accessed July 2022).

  32. General Dental Council. Standards for the Dental Team. 2013. Available at https://standards.gdc-uk.org/Assets/pdf/Standards%20for%20the%20Dental%20Team.pdf (accessed January 2022).

  33. O'Brien J W, Natarajan M, Shaikh I. A survey of doctors at a UK teaching hospital to assess understanding of recent changes to consent law. Ann Med Surg (Lond) 2017; 18: 10-13.

  34. Hajivassiliou E C, Hajivassiliou C A. Informed consent in primary dental care: patients' understanding and satisfaction with the consent process. Br Dent J 2015; 219: 221-224.

  35. Plymouth University. Analysis of fitness to practise case data for the General Dental Council. 2016. Available at https://www.gdc-uk.org/docs/default-source/research/ftp-data-analysis-detailed-report.pdf?sfvrsn=282ff980_2 (accessed July 2022).

  36. Dental Protection. Consent. 2016. Available at https://mpscdnuks.azureedge.net/resources/docs/librariesprovider2/default-document-library/consent-(uk-excl-scotland).pdf (accessed July 2022).

  37. British Medical Association. Consent and refusal by adults with decision-making capacity. A toolkit for doctors. 2019. Available at https://www.bma.org.uk/media/2481/bma-consent-toolkit-september-2019.pdf (accessed July 2022).

  38. Chan S W, Tulloch E, Cooper E S, Smith A, Wojcik W, Normal J E. Montgomery and informed consent: where are we now? Br Med J 2017; DOI: 10.1136/bmj.j2224.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. General Dental Practitioner, Alvington House Dental Practice, 112 Northgate Street, Bury St Edmunds, IP33 1HP, United Kingdom

    Shaun Sellars

  2. Ampersand Advocates, Parliament House, Edinburgh, EH1 1RF, United Kingdom

    Lauren Sutherland

Authors
  1. Shaun Sellars
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Lauren Sutherland
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Shaun Sellars: initial concept, draft and production of workflow, and final revisions. Lauren Sutherland: development and revision of the text, revision to workflow, and addition and revision of legal context to the manuscript. All authors contributed to the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaun Sellars.

Ethics declarations

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sellars, S., Sutherland, L. Patient choice: the shape of consent post-Montgomery. Br Dent J 234, 655–659 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-023-5752-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41415-023-5752-6

Search

Advanced search

Quick links