Why and How Is Consent Obtained?

Wheeler, Robert A.

doi:10.1007/978-3-319-43527-5_1

Robert A. Wheeler⁷

Part of the book series: Handbook Series of Consent in Pediatric Surgical Subspecialities ((HSCPSS))

657 Accesses

Abstract

‘Choice’ has achieved high priority in many developed countries, reflecting the fundamental role of autonomy. That is, the right of every citizen to influence their own destiny. In English health care terms, this has two important consequences, and these are shared in many jurisdictions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 84.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 129.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 109.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Bolam v, Friern Barnet Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582.
2.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire HB (Scotland) [2015] UKSC 11.
3.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire HB (Scotland) [2015] UKSC 11 para 87.
4.
Birch v University College London Hospital NHSFT [2008] EWHC 2237.
5.
Reibl v Hughes. DLR Canada 1980; 114: 11.
6.
F v R. South Australian Supreme Court 1983;33: 189.
7.
Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital. All England Reports, House of Lords 1985; 1: 643.
8.
Poynter v Hillingdon Health Authority. Butterworths Medical Law Reports 1997; 37: 192.
9.
Rogers v Whittaker. CLR HC Australia 1993;175: 479.
10.
Newell v Goldenberg. Medical Law Reports 1995;6: 371.
11.
Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare Trust. Butterworths Medical Law Reports 1999;48:118.
12.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire HB (Scotland) [2015] UKSC 11 para 89.
13.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 Sch3.
14.
DH, Reference guide to consent for examination or treatment, Second edition, 2009.
15.
Chatterton v Gerson [1981] 1 All ER 257 @ 265.
16.
Family Law Reform Act 1969s8.
17.
Re P (Medical Treatment: Best Interests) [2004] 2 All ER 1117.
18.
Re W (A Minor) (Medical Treatment: Court’s Jurisdiction) [1992] 3 WLR 758.
19.
Gillick v West Norfolk & Wisbech AHA [1986] AC 112.
20.
Wheeler RA. Gillick or Fraser? A plea for consistency over competence in children BMJ 2006 332 807.
21.
Re M (Medical Treatment: Consent) [1999] 2 FLR 1097.
22.
Re L (Medical Treatment: Gillick Competency) [1998] 2 FLR 810.
23.
For a full account see Bainham A, Children: The Modern Law’ 2005 Family Law, Jordan Publishing, Bristol.
24.
Re T (Wardship: Medical Treatment) [1997] 1 FLR 502.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Department of Clinical Law, University Hospital of Southampton, Southampton, UK
Robert A. Wheeler

Authors

Robert A. Wheeler
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert A. Wheeler .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Sheffield Children's Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Sheffield, United Kingdom
Prasad Godbole
Department of Urology, The Children's Hospital, Aurora, Colorado, USA
Duncan T. Wilcox
Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada
Martin A. Koyle

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wheeler, R.A. (2016). Why and How Is Consent Obtained?. In: Godbole, P., Wilcox, D., Koyle, M. (eds) Consent in Pediatric Urology . Handbook Series of Consent in Pediatric Surgical Subspecialities . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43527-5_1

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-43527-5_1
Published: 13 December 2016
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-43526-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-43527-5
eBook Packages: MedicineMedicine (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics