Hii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2) National Cancer Centre: Modifying Montgomery

Research output: Contribution to journalReview article (Academic Journal)

109 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

In Hii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2) National Cancer Centre, the Singapore Court of Appeal followed the approach of other Commonwealth jurisdictions by rejecting the application of Bolam as the standard of disclosure in claims concerning informed consent to medical treatment. Instead, the court employed a modified version of the standard of disclosure adopted in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board. While broadly welcomed, Montgomery has been criticised for its lack of clarity on the application of some elements of its disclosure standard. In particular, questions remain as to: what factors should be taken into account within the reasonable and particular patient limbs of the test of materiality; how will the ‘reasonableness’ of alternative treatments be determined; and what is the scope of the therapeutic exception. This case commentary explores how Hii’s analysis of the modified standard offers insights into how those elements of Montgomery could be interpreted in the future.
Original languageEnglish
Article numberfwy044
Pages (from-to)339-351
Number of pages13
JournalMedical Law Review
Volume27
Issue number2
Early online date28 Jan 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 1 May 2019

Bibliographical note

© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.

Keywords

  • Informed consent
  • Montgomery standard
  • Standard of disclosure

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Hii Chii Kok v (1) Ooi Peng Jin London Lucien; (2) National Cancer Centre: Modifying Montgomery'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this