Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.
Skip to main content


Caterina Milo, AHRC PhD candidate in Healthcare Law and part-time tutor at Durham Law School

This paper is exploring how the Supreme Court Judgment in Montgomery affects doctors' duty of information disclosure in the abortion context. Through an analysis of the materiality test of information disclosure, it will seek to highlight both challenges and potentials for the doctor-woman relationship in the abortion setting. In particular, it will ask how doctors’ duty to information disclosure should be interpreted in this context in light of two principles of medical partnership and authentic autonomy.

The Supreme Court judgment in Montgomery marked a crucial step in the debate concerning doctor-patient relationship and informed consent. Patients and doctors are no longer to be regarded as antagonists, but as partners striving for the delivery of the best healthcare outcome for the patient. At the same time this judgment recognizes that the information disclosure process would serve patients’ needs and values. Montgomery hence made a room for both medical partnership and patient’s autonomy.

The aim of this paper is to show that Montgomery has the potential, amongst others, to shape doctors’ duty of care well beyond the mainstream medicine context and affect also the abortion arena. It will highlight the crucial role played by informed consent discourses in the abortion context, while also suggesting possible ways to minimize still existent challenges so as to better safeguard both medical partnership and a thick concept of autonomy (i.e. authentic).



Joseph Schnitter, Medical Student, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai

In this presentation, I will explore the role of activism in the medical field and whether it is appropriate for doctors to assume this role. I hope to demonstrate why activism to promote structural change in the pursuit of improved patient well-being is in-line with the values of the medical profession and the principles of medical ethics. Additionally, I will highlight the major criticisms against doctors working as activists and show that they either don’t hold up to scrutiny or are not significant enough to outweigh the benefits of this work. Therefore, doctors who work as activists are worthy of commendation and their work should be actively encouraged by medical institutions.

Forthcoming events

Richard Doll Seminar: Design and analysis of prevalence surveys in low-resource settings

Tuesday, 25 February 2020, 1pm to 2pm @ Richard Doll Lecture Theatre, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, OX3 7LF

HERC Seminar: Learning healthcare systems for cost-effective precision oncology.

Thursday, 27 February 2020, 12pm to 1pm @ Seminar room 0, Big Data Institute, Old Road Campus, OX3 7LF

The Global Response to the Novel Coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) Outbreak

Thursday, 27 February 2020, 2.30pm to 4pm @ Seminar rooms, Big Data Institute

Richard Doll Seminar: The Risk of Everything – using linked electronic health records to develop and validate risk prediction tools for use in clinical care

Tuesday, 03 March 2020, 1pm to 2pm @ Richard Doll Lecture Theatre, Richard Doll Building, Old Road Campus, OX3 7LF

WEH/Ethox Seminar: Building research capacity through North-South Partnerships: some ethical reflections and a social justice agenda

Wednesday, 04 March 2020, 11am to 12.30pm @ Seminar room 0, Big Data Institute, Old Road Campus, OX3 7LF

Richard Doll Seminar: Trials to assess potential preventive, neuroprotective or symptom-alleviating treatments for Alzheimer’s disease

Tuesday, 10 March 2020, 1pm to 2pm @ Seminar rooms, Big Data Institute, Old Road Campus, OX3 7LF