| dc.description.abstract | In Sri Lanka the law on medical negligence persists against the backdrop of a culture where the medical profession is one of the most noble and revered of all vocations. A doctor?s opinion is always respected and rarely challenged in Sri Lankan society. Its views with regard to healthcare are an embodiment of the phrase ?Doctor knows best?. However, in recent times there has been a paradigm shift in the doctor-patient relationship due to increased concern for patient rights and especially one?s right to self-determination. The objective of this research, is to address this change in social attitude through proposed legal reforms and changes in judicial approach in the area of informed consent. The principle of informed consent has opened new horizons in the protection of patient autonomy, where failure to disclose vital medical information becomes actionable under the law of Delict/Tort. However, due to a paucity in case law, the position of Sri Lankan courts is unclear with regard to the required standard of disclosure to obtain informed consent i.e. whether the mere signing of a consent form is enough to constitute ?informed? consent. This paper proposes expansion of the principle of Informed Consent, in light of the principles set out in the UK Supreme Court?s recent landmark judgment; Montgomery v. Lanarkshire Health Board. The study shows through a critical analysis of this case and the socio-legal context of Sri Lanka, how expanding the current law on informed consent will protect patient autonomy and afford an alternative course of legal action, for those who cannot satisfy the traditional ?but for? test or overcome the rigors of the fault based approach, while raising the standard of healthcare and the medical practice which is allegedly in steep decline. | en_US |
