Agreeing to treatment
in Medicine, patients and the law (sixth edition)
Abstract only
Log-in for full text

You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.

manchesterhive requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals - to see content that you/your institution should have access to, please log in through your library system or with your personal username and password.

If you are authenticated and think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

Non-subscribers can freely search the site, view abstracts/extracts and download selected front and end matter. 

Institutions can purchase access to individual titles; please contact manchesterhive@manchester.ac.uk for pricing options.

ACCESS TOKENS

If you have an access token for this content, you can redeem this via the link below:

Redeem token

In the landmark 2015 Supreme Court decision of Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, the much criticised decision of the House of Lords in Sidaway v Royal Bethlem Hospital was consigned to history. No longer are adults with mental capacity only entitled to be told what doctors think it is appropriate to tell them. This chapter considers the torts of battery and negligence, exploring the right to consent and the right to say ‘no’ to treatment. What is meant by consent? How much must a doctor tell a patient? Can a doctor withhold information from a patient in her best interests (the so-called ‘therapeutic privilege’)?

Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 37 37 10
Full Text Views 0 0 0
PDF Downloads 1 1 1