Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Fallacy or Functionality: Law and Policy of Patient Treatment Choice in the NHS

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Health Care Analysis Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It has been claimed that beneath the government rhetoric of patient choice, no real choice exists either in law or in National Health Service (NHS) policy (Whiteman in Health Care Anal 21:146–170, 2013). Thus, choice is considered to be a fallacy in that patients are not able to demand specific treatment, but are only able to express preferences amongst the available options. This article argues that, rather than considering choice only in terms of patient autonomy or consumer rights, choice ought to be seen as serving other functions: Choice serves as a mechanism of destabilisation, i.e., as a lever for change. This is apparent at the level of patient and doctor, and at the level of patient and health authority, but even more so, at the level of government. Patient choice, rather than benefiting the individual, can have effects on a wider scale. It encourages change and reform in healthcare practices and in the NHS institutions.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Barr, D. A., Fenton, L., & Blane, D. (2008). The claim for patient choice and equity. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34, 271–274.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. BBC News. (2012). NHS competition extended to community care. London: BBC. Accessed August 30, 2012 from www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-14205603.

  3. Biggs, H. (2007). ‘Taking account of the views of the patient’, but only if the clinician (and the court) agrees-R (Burke) v General Medical Council. Child and Family Law Quarterly, 19(2), 225–238.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Birch v University College London Hospital NHS Foundation Trust. (2008). EWHC 2237 (QB).

  5. Bolam v Friern Hospital Management Committee. (1957). WLR 582.

  6. Brazier, M. (1987). Patient autonomy and consent to treatment: The role of the law? Legal Studies, 7(2), 169–193.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Chatterton v Gerson. (1981). All ER 257.

  8. Clarke, J., Newman, J., & Westmarland, L. (2008). The antagonisms of choice: New Labour and the reform of public services. Social Policy and Society, 7(2), 245–253.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Council of Civil Service Unions v Minister for the Civil Service. (1985). AC 374.

  10. Department of Health. (1989). Working for patients. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Department of Health. (1997). The new NHS: Modern-dependable. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Department of Health. (2000). NHS Plan: A plan for investment, a plan for reform. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Department of Health. (2000). The expert patient: A new approach to chronic disease management for the twenty-first century. London: DH.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Department of Health. (2004). Choosing health: Making choices easier. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Department of Health. (2004). The NHS improvement plan: Putting people at the heart of public services. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Department of Health. (2007). Choice matters: Putting patients in control. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Department of Health. (2008). High quality care for all: NHS next stage review: Final report. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Department of Health. (2008). NHS choices: Delivering for the NHS. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Department of Health. (2008). Raising the profile of long-term conditions: A compendium of information. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Department of Health. (2009). NHS constitution for England. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Department of Health. (2009). Personal health budgets: First steps. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Department of Health. (2010). Equity and excellence: Liberating the NHS. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Department of Health. (2010). Liberating the NHS: Greater choice and control, a consultation on proposals. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Department of Health. (2011). Healthy lives, healthy people: Update and way forward. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Department of Health. (2011). Operational guidance to the NHS: Extending patient choice of provider. Accessed September 1, 2012 from http://www.dh.gov.uk/publications.

  26. Department of Health. (2012). Health and social care act explained: Provider regulation to support innovative and efficient services. Accessed December 6, 2012 from http://healthandcare.dh.gov.uk/act-factsheets/.

  27. Department of Health. (2012). NHS constitution for England. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Department of Health. (2012). Caring for our future: Reforming care and support. London: The Stationery Office.

    Google Scholar 

  29. Dixon, A., & Le Grand, J. (2006). Is greater patient choice consistent with equity? The case of the English NHS. Journal of Health Services Research & Policy, 11(3), 162–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Ford, A. (2012). The concept of exceptionality: A legal farce? Medical Law Review, 20(3), 304–336.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  31. Forder, J., Jones, K., Glendinning, C., Caiels, J., Welch, E., Baxter, K., Davidson, J., Windle, K., Irvine, A., King, D., & Dolan, P. (2012). Evaluation of the personal health budget pilot programme. discussion paper, Department of Health. Accessed December 6, 2012 from http://php.york.ac.uk/inst/spru/pubs/2331/.

  32. Fotaki, M., Boyd, A., Smith, L., McDonald, R., Roland, M., Sheaff, R., et al. (2006). Patient choice and the organisation and delivery of health services: Scoping review. London: National Co-ordinating Centre for NHS Service Delivery and Organisation.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Fovargue, S., & Miola, J. (2010). One step forward, two steps back? The GMC, the common law and ‘informed’ consent. Journal of Medical Ethics, 36, 494–497.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. General Medical Council. (1995). Good medical practice. London: GMC.

    Google Scholar 

  35. General Medical Council. (1998). Good medical practice. London: GMC.

    Google Scholar 

  36. General Medical Council. (1998). Seeking patients’ consent: The ethical considerations. London: GMC.

    Google Scholar 

  37. General Medical Council. (2002). Withholding and withdrawing life-prolonging treatment: Good practice and decision-making. London: GMC.

    Google Scholar 

  38. General Medical Council. (2008). Consent: Patients and doctors making decisions together. London: GMC.

    Google Scholar 

  39. General Medical Council. (2010). Treatment and care towards the end of life: Good practice in decision-making. London: GMC.

    Google Scholar 

  40. General Medical Council. (2013). Good medical practice. London: GMC.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Glass v UK. (2004). ECHR 102.

  42. Greener, I. (2009). Towards a history of choice in UK health policy. Sociology of Health & Illness, 31, 309–324.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Health and Social Care Act. (2012).

  44. Holm, S. (2011). Final responsibility for treatment choice: The proper role of medical doctors? Health Expectations, 14(2), 201–209.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Human Rights Act. (1998). Which incorporates ECHR.

  46. Jackson, E. (2006). Informed consent to medical treatment and the impotence of tort. In S. McLean (Ed.), First do no harm: Law, ethics and healthcare. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Jackson, E. (2009). Medical law: Text, cases, and materials (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Jones, M. (1999). Informed consent and other fairy stories. Medical Law Review, 7, 103–134.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  49. Klein, R. (2001). The new politics of the NHS (4th ed.). Harlow: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Klein, R. (2007). Values talk in the (English) NHS. In S. Greer & D. Rowland (Eds.), Devolving policy, diverging values: The values of the United Kingdom’s National Health Services. London: Nuffield Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Klein, R. (2010). The New politics of the NHS: From creation to reinvention (6th ed.). Abingdon: Radcliffe Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Le Grand, J. (2009). Choice and competition in publicly funded healthcare. Health Economics, Policy and Law, 4, 479–488.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Maclean, A. (2001). A crossing of the Rubicon on the human rights ferry. Modern Law Review, 64, 775–794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  54. Maclean, A. (2004). The doctrine of informed consent: Does it exist and has it crossed the Atlantic? Legal Studies, 24(3), 386–413.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  55. Maclean, A. (2009). Autonomy, informed consent and medical law: A relational challenge (1st ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  56. Maclean, A. (2012). From Sidaway to Pearce and beyond: Is the legal regulation of consent any better following a quarter of a century of judicial scrutiny? Medical Law Review, 20, 108–129.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Manning, J. (2004). Informed consent to medical treatment: The common law and New Zealand’s Code of patient’s rights. Medical Law Review, 12(2), 181–216.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  58. Maybin, J., & Klein, R. (2012). Thinking about rationing. London: King’s Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  59. McLean, S. (2010). Autonomy, consent and the law. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Medical Act. (1983).

  61. Ministry of Health. (1944). A National Health Service (Cmd 6502).

  62. Ministry of Health. (1946). The National Health Service Bill 1946 (Cmd 6761).

  63. Miola, J. (2007). Medical ethics and medical law: A symbiotic relationship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Miola, J. (2008). On the materiality of risk: Paper tigers and panaceas. Medical Law Review, 17, 76–108.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Montgomery, J. (2006). The legitimacy of medical law. In S. A. McLean (Ed.), First do no harm: Law, ethics and healthcare. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  66. National Health Service Act. (2006).

  67. Needham, C. (2009). Interpreting personalization in England’s National Health Service: A textual analysis. Critical Policy Studies, 3, 204–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Newdick, C. (1997). Resource allocation in the National Health Service. American Journal of Law and Medicine, 23, 291–314.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  69. NHS Confederation. (2008). Priority setting: Legal considerations. Accessed October 2, 2012 from http://www.nhsconfed.org/Publications/Documents/Priority%20setting%20legal%20considerations.pdf.

  70. NHS Confederation. (2008). Priority setting: Managing individual funding requests. Accessed October 2, 2012 from http://www.nhsconfed.org/Publications/Documents/Priority%20setting%20managing%20individual%20funding%20requests.pdf.

  71. NHS England. (2013). Personal health budgets. Accessed December 31, 2013 from http://www.personalhealthbudgets.england.nhs.uk/.

  72. Oliver, A. (2005). The English National Health Service: 1979–2005. Health Economics, 14(Suppl 1), 575–599.

    Google Scholar 

  73. Oliver, A., & Evans, J. (2005). The paradox of promoting choice in a collectivist system. Journal of Medical Ethics, 34(4), 187. doi:10.1136/jme.2005.011809.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  74. Patient Mobility Directive (Directive 2011/24/EU on patients’ rights in cross-border healthcare).

  75. Pearce v United Bristol Healthcare NHS Trusts. (1998). 48 BMLR 118 (CA).

  76. Platt, L., Sunkin, M., & Calvo, K. (2010). Judicial review litigation as an incentive to change in local authority public services in England and Wales. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(Suppl 2), i243–i260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  77. Pollock, A. (2005). NHS plc: The privatisation of our healthcare. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  78. R (AC) v Berkshire West Primary Care Trust. (2011). EWCA Civ 247.

  79. R (Burke) v General Medical Council. (2004). EWHC 1879 (Admin).

  80. R (Burke) v General Medical Council. (2005). EWCA Civ 1003.

  81. R (Condliff) v North Staffordshire Primary Care Trust. (2011). EWCA Civ 910.

  82. R (Gordon) v Bromley NHS Primary Care Trust. (2006). EWHC 2462 (Admin).

  83. R (Murphy) v Salford Primary Care Trust. (2008). EWHC 1908 (Admin).

  84. R (Otley) v Barking and Dagenham NHS Primary Care Trust. (2007). EWHC 1927 (Admin).

  85. R (Rogers) v Swindon NHS Primary Care Trust and Secretary of State for Health. (2006). EWCA Civ 392 (Admin).

  86. R v North West Lancashire Health Authority, ex p A, D and G. (1999). Lloyd’s Rep Med 399 (CA).

  87. Richards, G. M. (2008). Improving access to medicines for NHS patients. London: DH.

    Google Scholar 

  88. Roberts, A., Marshall, L., & Charlesworth, A. (2012). A decade of austerity? The funding pressures facing the NHS from 2010/11 to 2021/22. London: Nuffield Trust.

    Google Scholar 

  89. Robertson, G. (1981). Informed consent to medical treatment. Law Quarterly Review, 97, 102–126.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  90. Robertson, G. (1991). Informed consent 10 years later: The impact of Reibl v Hughes. The Canadian Bar Review, 70(3), 423–447.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  91. Robertson, G. (2003). Informed consent 20 years later? Health Law Journal, special edn, 153–159.

  92. Royal Commission on the National Health Service. (Cmnd 7615, 1979).

  93. Sabel, C., & Simon, W. (2003). Destabilisation rights: How public law litigation succeeds. Harvard Law Review, 117, 1016–1100.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Schelkle, W., Costa-i-Font, J., & van Wijnbergen, C. (2010). Consumer choice, welfare reform and participation in Europe. RECON, Online Working Paper 2010/26). Accessed October 31, 2012 from www.reconproject.eu/main.php/RECON_wp_1026.pdf?fileitem=5456447.

  95. Secretaries of State for Health, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland. (1989). Working for patients (Cm 555).

  96. Secretary of State for Health. (1999). The new NHS: Modern-dependable (CM 3807).

  97. Sem v Mid Yorkshire Hospitals NHS Trust. (2005). EWHC 3469 (QB).

  98. Sheldrick, B. (2003). Judicial review and the allocation of healthcare resources in Canada and the United Kingdom. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, Research and Practice, 5, 149–166.

    Google Scholar 

  99. Sidaway v Board of Governors of the Bethlem Royal Hospital and the Maudsley Hospital. (1985). AC 871.

  100. Sheppard, M. K. (2013). Treatment of low-priority and the patient mobility directive 2011, an end to legal uncertainty for the English NHS? European Journal of Health Law, 20(3), 295–314.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  101. Skegg, P. (1999). English medical law and ‘informed consent’: An antipodean assessment and alternative. Medical Law Review, 7(2), 135–165.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  102. Teff, H. (1994). Reasonable care: Legal perspectives on the doctor/patient relationship. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Veitch, K. (2007). The jurisdiction of medical law. Aldershot: Ashgate.

    Google Scholar 

  104. Veitch, K. (2010). The government of health care and the politics of patient empowerment: New labour and the NHS reform agenda in England. Law & Policy, 32(3), 313–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  105. Watt, S. (2000). Clinical decision-making in the context of chronic illness. Health Expectations, 3(1), 6–16.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Webster, C. (2002). The national health service: A political history (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Whiteman, I. (2013). The fallacy of choice in the common law and NHS policy. Health Care Analysis, 21, 146–170.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for their invaluable suggestions.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Law, Queen Mary University of London, Mile End Road, London, E1 4NS, UK

    Maria K. Sheppard

Authors
  1. Maria K. Sheppard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Maria K. Sheppard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sheppard, M.K. Fallacy or Functionality: Law and Policy of Patient Treatment Choice in the NHS. Health Care Anal 24, 279–300 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-014-0275-6

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10728-014-0275-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation