Under the Supreme Court judgment in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) and GMC guidance, which risks must a doctor discuss when seeking consent?
Answer and explanation
Correct answer: A. A material risk that a reasonable patient, or this patient, would find significant
- Step 1: The Montgomery decision replaced the doctor-centred Bolam approach for disclosure of risk. Step 2. The test is whether a reasonable person in the patient's position would attach significance to the risk, or the doctor knows the patient would, and the discussion is tailored to the individual. Answer: A material risk that a reasonable patient, or this patient, would find significant. Why not the others: A fixed percentage threshold ignores what matters to the patient. A responsible body of doctors is the old Bolam test, which no longer governs disclosure. Restricting discussion to fatal risks leaves out serious non-fatal harms.
Practise more Ethics, law and professionalism.
Free questions with an explanation for every one, and full timed UKMLA Applied Knowledge Test (MSRA-style single best answer) mock tests.
More Ethics, law and professionalism questions
- Under the Mental Capacity Act 2005, which ability is NOT part of the functional test of capacity?
- A 45-year-old Jehovah's Witness with capacity refuses a blood transfusion after major bleeding. The team believes the transfusion would save…
- An older man without capacity needs a decision about a major operation. He has no lasting power of attorney, no advance decision and no fami…
- A 15-year-old girl asks for contraception without telling her parents. Which is correct?
- A man arrives at the emergency department with a stab wound he says happened in an assault. What does GMC guidance require?
- A patient with uncontrolled seizures continues to drive despite repeated advice. What do GMC and DVLA arrangements allow?