Ahmed S, Bryant L, Cole P Midwives' perceptions of their role as facilitators of informed choice. Midwifery. 2013; 29:(7)745-50

Alaszewski A, Horlick-Jones T How can doctors communicate information about risk more effectively?. BMJ. 2003; 327:(7417)728-31

Aune I, Möller A ‘I want a choice, but I don't want to decide’ – a qualitative study of pregnant women's experiences regarding early ultrasound risk assessment for chromosomal abnormalities. Midwifery. 2012; 28:(1)14-23

Ball H Empowering families to make informed choices about sleep safety. British Journal of Midwifery. 2015; 23:(3)164-5

Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. 1957;

Caulfield T Malpractice in the age of health care reform. In: Caulfield T, von Tigerstrom B Edmonton: University of Alberta Press; 2002

Midwifery 2020: Delivering expectations.London: DH; 2010

Dresser R What bioethics can learn from women's health movement. In: Wolf S New York: Oxford University Press; 1996

General Medical Council. Good Medical Practice. 2013. (accessed 17 March 2015)

Gould D Normal labour: A concept analysis. J Adv Nurs. 2000; 31:(2)418-27

Kirkup BLondon: Stationery Office; 2015

Lee S Risk perception in women with high-risk pregnancies. British Journal of Midwifery. 2014; 22:(1)8-13

MacKenzie Bryers H, van Teijlingen E Risk theory, social and medical models: a critical analysis of the concept of risk in maternity care. Midwifery. 2010; 26:(5)488-96

Maclean A From Sidaway to Pearce and beyond: Is the legal regulation of consent any better following a quarter of a century of judicial scrutiny?. Med Law Rev. 2012; 20:108-22

McBride N, 4th edn. Harlow: Pearson; 2012

National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence. NICE Clinical guideline NG3 Diabetes in pregnancy: management of diabetes and its complications from preconception to the postnatal period. 2015. (accessed 17 March 2015)

Midwives Rules and Standards.London: NMC; 2012

The Code: Professional standards of practice and behaviour for nurses and midwives.London: NMC; 2015

, 2nd edn. London: RCOG; 2012

Sandall J, Hatem M, Devane D, Soltani H, Gate S Discussions of findings from a Cochrane review of midwife-led versus other models of care for childbearing women: continuity, normality and safety. Midwifery. 2009; 25:(1)8-13

Saxell L Risk: theoretical or actual?. In: Page LA Edinburgh: Churchill Livingstone; 2000

Scamell M, Alaszewski A Fateful moments and the categorisation of risk: Midwifery practice and the evernarrowing window of normality during childbirth. Health Risk Soc. 2012; 14:(2)207-21

Sherwin S A relational approach to autonomy in health care. In: Sherwin S Philadelphia: Temple University Press; 1998

Skyrme L Induction of labour for post-term pregnancy. British Journal of Midwifery. 2014; 22:(6)400-7

Thachuk A Midwifery, informed choice, and reproductive autonomy: a relational approach. Fem Psychol. 2007; 17:(1)39-56

Informing clients of risk: Immediate implications of a landmark supreme court decision

02 July 2015
Volume 23 · Issue 7


In March 2015, the Supreme Court published its decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board, a case involving the failure to warn a pregnant diabetic woman of the risk of shoulder dystocia and the possibility of having a caesarean section to avoid this risk. The risk materialised and the baby suffered oxygen deprivation. The lower courts had applied the test for the standard of care that had been in place since 1985, which has been criticised for protecting doctors not patients. The Supreme Court has introduced a new, autonomy-based, patient-centred standard. This article examines the case and explains the importance of the change for future midwifery practice. When disclosing risks, midwives must identify what a reasonable person in the woman's position, with this woman's specific characteristics, would consider a significant risk. They could be held liable for non-disclosure even if the woman does not ask about specific risks.

On 11 March 2015, the Supreme Court handed down its decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board (2015) UKSC 11, a case involving the failure of an obstetrician to warn a pregnant woman with diabetes of the risk of shoulder dystocia if she gave birth naturally and the possibility of having a caesarean section instead. The risk materialised and delay in delivering the baby led to oxygen deprivation and subsequent injury. The lower courts had applied the Bolam test standard Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee [1957] 1 WLR 582) that has been in place since the House of Lords decision in 1985 in the case of Sidaway. This standard asks what a reasonable competent obstetrician would have told the woman. Over the last few years, this standard has been criticised for being doctor-centred not patient-centred and for failing to recognise patients’ rights of autonomy and self-determination (Maclean, 2012). The Supreme Court decision has over-ruled Sidaway and therefore, a new, autonomy-based, patient-centred standard applies with immediate effect. This article provides an overview of the facts of the case itself, the allegation of negligent failure to warn of the risk of shoulder dystocia, and contextualises the risk of shoulder dystocia in light of contemporary research. It explains the importance of the Supreme Court decision for future midwifery practice.

Register now to continue reading

Thank you for visiting British Journal of Midwifery and reading some of our peer-reviewed resources for midwives. To read more, please register today. You’ll enjoy the following great benefits:

What's included

  • Limited access to our clinical or professional articles

  • New content and clinical newsletter updates each month