The role of medical partnership and autonomy in the informed consent context: abortion as a case study

Abstract: In this paper I argue that the safeguard of informed consent (IC) is predicated upon a form of revisited medicalization. Particularly, I argue that it is only when the medical contribution and patients’ autonomy meet, that IC can be safeguarded. The first part of this paper shows that the evolution of case law on medical negligence has not fully embraced this approach. Despite the promising nature of the judgement in Montgomery, especially for the key relevance attributed to dialogue and communication between the parties, a tension with the previous standard of disclosure (i.e. Bolam) still exist. The first part of the paper therefore claims that the law on IC should better reflect the principle of partnership and authentic autonomy, derived and adapted from the Montgomery judgment: namely, the idea that patients and clinicians work together towards a final decision. The second part of this paper will offer the domestic law and policy on abortion as a case study. It will claim that a focus on access alone can constitute a narrow approach that does not necessarily give justice to IC in the abortion context. I argue that opportunities of better collaboration between women and clinicians should be fostered so as to give more weight to the decision-making process and hence safeguard IC. IC is ultimately a journey, not an event. For this journey to unfold law and policy approaches should more clearly embrace forms of revisited medicalization and hence value both medical and patients’ contributions.