Update on Thefaut v Johnson, para 1.26, page 18
In Spencer v Hillingdon Hospital NHS Trust it was determined that the Montgomery approach to informed consent was simply a variant of Bolam and that the test was: would the ‘ordinary sensible patient’ feel justifiably aggrieved at not being provided with the information in issue. In Thefaut v Johnson Green J (correctly in the authors’ view) rejected that approach, indicating that it failed to give sufficient weight to the subjective – and patient-centric – approach required by the Supreme Court in Montgomery.
Update to para 5.12, page 132: Introduction to the Official Solicitor
para 5.26, page 147: Litigation Friend
para 5.58, page 170: The High Court’s inherent jurisdiction in relation to vulnerable adults
The Official Solicitor has issued a new and amplified Practice Direction – Appointment In Family Proceedings And Proceedings Under The Inherent Jurisdiction In Relation To Adults, January 2017
This replaces the Practice Direction issued in March 2013, set out at Appendix 5.7.
Update to main text para 13.1, page 376: Introduction
There have been significant developments in this area in recent months.
The most important is Briggs: a policeman and Gulf War veteran, injured in a traffic accident, remained in a minimally conscious state; his wife brought an application seeking withdrawal of clinically assisted artificial nutrition and hydration. Charles J’s first judgment held that Mrs Briggs was entitled to bring her application for withdrawal under s21A of the Mental Capacity Act 2005. This conclusion may have far reaching consequences for both s21A applications and serious medical treatment cases where a standard authorisation is in place. The judgment is currently under appeal, and dealt with in an update on chapter 5. In the later substantive judgment, Charles J granted Mrs Briggs’ application, applying the best interest test to conclude that had Mr Briggs been able to decide the matter for himself, he would not have consented to receive continued treatment by clinically assisted artificial nutrition and hydration.
Update to para 6.1, page 174: General
R (ota Ferreira) v HM Senior Coroner for Inner South London  EWCA Civ 31 addresses the tangled issue of what actually constitutes a deprivation of liberty. It is a further retreat by the judiciary from the far-reaching implications of Cheshire West.
Update to main text para 1.25 fn3, page 18:
For guidance on consent see the Royal College of Surgeons’ Consent: Supported Decision-Making – a good practice guide: which notes:
‘The surgeon discussing treatment with the patient should be suitably trained and qualified to provide the treatment in question and have sufficient knowledge of the associated risks and complications, as well as any alternative treatments available for the patient’s condition’