Acute traumatic spinal cord injury. Consent is a new cause of action

There are two management strategies for the early management of acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI); 10-12 weeks bed-rest or rapid mobilisation (typically following surgery to stabilise an unstable spinal column injury). A recent review has demonstrated poor outcomes with rapid mobilisation with up to 13.2% deteriorating neurologically (0% in one of the conservative series) and 24%-33% of cases failing to improve to walking (compared with the conservative cases). The Montgomery and McCulloch SC judgements mandate that the benefits, risks and alternatives to any proposed treatment are discussed with patients. Previously there was no duty of care to explain the risks and alternatives to rapid mobilisation. There is no decided case but in the light of current knowledge the inferiority of rapid mobilisation, and the alternative of conservative treatment with better outcomes should be explained to patients. A failure to do so could be negligent in respect of consent for treatment.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Medico-Legal Journal
Published
2026-08-18
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00258172261455440
Primary Topic
Spinal Cord Injury Research
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Acute traumatic spinal cord injury. Consent is a new cause of action

N. V. Todd
Medico-Legal Journal
Spinal Cord Injury Research
article

Acute traumatic spinal cord injury. Consent is a new cause of action

N. V. Todd
article en

Abstract

There are two management strategies for the early management of acute traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI); 10-12 weeks bed-rest or rapid mobilisation (typically following surgery to stabilise an unstable spinal column injury). A recent review has demonstrated poor outcomes with rapid mobilisation with up to 13.2% deteriorating neurologically (0% in one of the conservative series) and 24%-33% of cases failing to improve to walking (compared with the conservative cases). The Montgomery and McCulloch SC judgements mandate that the benefits, risks and alternatives to any proposed treatment are discussed with patients. Previously there was no duty of care to explain the risks and alternatives to rapid mobilisation. There is no decided case but in the light of current knowledge the inferiority of rapid mobilisation, and the alternative of conservative treatment with better outcomes should be explained to patients. A failure to do so could be negligent in respect of consent for treatment.

Medico-Legal Journal
Newcastle upon Tyne Hospital (GB)
Openalex Percentile: Top 10%
Spinal Cord Injury Research
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.