Skip to main content
×
×
Home

The Montgomery ruling, individual values and shared decision-making in psychiatry

  • Julian C. Hughes, David Crepaz-Keay, Charlotte Emmett and K. W. M. Fulford
Summary

This article starts with a brief review of the UK Supreme Court's decision in the Montgomery case. Although much of the focus in discussing the case has been on the disclosure of risk, an important aspect of the model of consent contained in the judgment is that of dialogue. The model of informed consent set out in Montgomery suggests shared decision-making as the norm. Central to shared decision-making, however, is an awareness of values and of how values can vary between people. We introduce values-based practice as an approach that is entirely in keeping with the precepts of the Montgomery judgment. We go on to review how values-based practice and shared decision-making are relevant to psychiatric practice, using as examples recovery practice and compulsory detention under the Mental Health Act 1983.

LEARNING OBJECTIVES

Appreciate that a new test of consent has been established as of a result of the UK Supreme Court's Montgomery ruling

Learn about the role of values-based practice as a partner to evidence-based practice in implementing Montgomery

Understand how values-based practice and Montgomery together support shared decision-making in psychiatry

DECLARATION OF INTEREST

None.

  • View HTML
    • Send article to Kindle

      To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

      Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

      Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

      The Montgomery ruling, individual values and shared decision-making in psychiatry
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Dropbox

      To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

      The Montgomery ruling, individual values and shared decision-making in psychiatry
      Available formats
      ×
      Send article to Google Drive

      To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

      The Montgomery ruling, individual values and shared decision-making in psychiatry
      Available formats
      ×
Copyright
Corresponding author
Correspondence Professor Julian C. Hughes, The RICE Centre, Building 8, Royal United Hospital, Combe Park, Bath BA1 3NG, UK. Email: julian.hughes@bristol.ac.uk
References
Hide All
Adshead, G (2009) Systemic thinking and values-based practice. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 15: 470–8.
Allott, P, Loganathan, L, Fulford, KWM (2002) Discovering hope for recovery: a review of a selection of recovery literature, implications for practice and systems change. Canadian Journal of Community Mental Health, 21: 1333.
Anthony, WA (1993) Recovery from mental illness: the guiding vision of the mental health system in the 1990s. Innovations and Research, 2: 1724.
Baker, E, Fee, J, Bovingdon, L, et al. (2013) From taking to using medication: recovery-focused prescribing and medicines management. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 19: 210.
Coulter, A, Collins, A (2011) Making Shared Decision-Making a Reality: No Decision About Me, Without Me. King's Fund.
de Jong, MH, Kamperman, AM, Oorschot, M, et al. (2016) Interventions to reduce compulsory psychiatric admissions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 73: 657–64.
Department of Health (2015) Mental Health Act 1983: Code of Practice. TSO (The Stationery Office).
Emmett, C, Poole, M, Bond, J, et al. (2013) Homeward bound or bound for a home? Assessing the capacity of dementia patients to make decisions about hospital discharge: comparing practice with legal standards. International Journal of Law and Psychiatry, 36: 7382.
Fulford, KWM (1989) Moral Theory and Medical Practice. Cambridge University Press.
Fulford, KWM (1998) Dissent and dissensus: the limits of consensus formation in Psychiatry. In Consensus Formation in Healthcare Ethics (eds ten Have, HAMJ, Sass, H-M): 175–92. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Fulford, KWM (Bill) (2004) Facts/values: ten principles of values-based medicine. In The Philosophy of Psychiatry: A Companion (ed Radden, J): 205–34. Oxford University Press.
Fulford, KWM, King, M (2008) A values-based perspective on good practice in compulsion. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 14: 183–4.
Fulford, KWM (2011) The value of evidence and evidence of values: bringing together values-based and evidence-based practice in policy and service development in mental health. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17: 976–87.
Fulford, KWM (Bill), Peile, E, Carroll, H (2012) Essential Values-Based Practice: Clinical Stories Linking Science with People. Cambridge University Press.
Fulford, KWM, Dewey, S, King, M (2015) Values-based involuntary seclusion and treatment: value pluralism and the UK's Mental Health Act 2007. In The Oxford Handbook of Psychiatric Ethics: Volume 2 (eds Sadler, JZ, van Staden, W, Fulford, KWM): 839–60. Oxford University Press.
General Medical Council (2008) Consent: Patients and Doctors Making Decisions Together (2008). GMC (http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/ethical_guidance/consent_guidance_contents.asp). Accessed 19 July 2016.
General Medical Council (2013) Good Medical Practice: Duties of a Doctor. GMC (http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/good_medical_practice/duties_of_a_doctor.asp). Accessed 12 August 2016.
Greener, H, Poole, M, Emmett, C, et al. (2012) Value judgements and conceptual tensions: decision-making in relation to hospital discharge for people with dementia. Clinical Ethics, 7: 166–74.
Handa, AI, Fulford-Smith, L, Barber, ZE, et al. (2016) The importance of seeing things from someone else's point of view. BMJ Careers, 15 August (http://careers.bmj.com/careers/advice/The_importance_of_seeing_things_from_someone_else's_point_of_view). Accessed 28 February 2017.
Harper, D, Speed, E (2012) Uncovering recovery: the resistible rise of recovery and resilience. Studies in Social Justice, 6: 925.
House of Commons Health Committee (2013) Post-Legislative Scrutiny of the Mental Health Act 2007: First Report of Session 2013–14. TSO (The Stationery Office).
Montgomery, J, Montgomery, E (2016) Montgomery on informed consent: an inexpert decision? Journal of Medical Ethics, 42: 8994.
Rix, KJB (2017) After a prolonged gestation and difficult labour, informed consent is safely delivered into English and Scots law. BJPsych Advances, 23: 6372.
Roberts, G, Dorkins, E, Wooldridge, J, et al. (2008) Detained – what's my choice? Part 1: Discussion. Advances in Psychiatric Treatment, 14: 172–80.
Robertson, JP, Collinson, C (2011) Positive risk taking: Whose risk is it? An exploration in community outreach teams in adult mental health and learning disability services. Health, Risk & Society, 13: 147–64.
Royal College of Psychiatrists (2009) Good Psychiatric Practice (3rd edn) (College Report CR154). Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Royal College of Psychiatrists (2014) Good Psychiatric Practice: Code of Ethics (College Report CR186). Royal College of Psychiatrists.
Slade, M (2009) Personal Recovery and Mental Illness: A Guide for Mental Health Professionals. Cambridge University Press.
South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, South West London and St George's Mental Health NHS Trust (2010) Recovery is for All: Hope, Agency and Opportunity in Psychiatry. A Position Statement by Consultant Psychiatrists. SLAM/SWLSTG.
Thornicroft, G, Farrelly, S, Szmukler, G, et al. (2013) Clinical outcomes of Joint Crisis Plans to reduce compulsory treatment for people with psychosis: a randomized controlled trial. Lancet, 381: 1634–41.
Woodbridge, K, Fulford, KWM (2004) Whose Values? A Workbook for Values-Based Practice in Mental Health. Sainsbury Centre for Mental Health.
Yousif, M (2016) Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board: implications of the Supreme Court ruling for psychiatry. Clinical Risk, 22: 3032.
Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582, 587.
Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (Scotland) [2015] UKSC 11.
Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital [1985] AC 871.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

BJPsych Advances
  • ISSN: 2056-4678
  • EISSN: 2056-4686
  • URL: /core/journals/bjpsych-advances
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Metrics

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 53
Total number of PDF views: 115 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 226 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 1st March 2018 - 19th April 2018. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

The Montgomery ruling, individual values and shared decision-making in psychiatry

  • Julian C. Hughes, David Crepaz-Keay, Charlotte Emmett and K. W. M. Fulford
Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.

×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *