How does the concept of autonomy assist public responses to ‘lifestyle’ diseases? Autonomy is fundamental to bioethics, but its emphasis on self-determination and individuality hardly supports public health policies to eat and drink less and take more exercise. Autonomy rejects a ‘nanny’ state. Yet, the cost of non-communicable diseases is increasing to individuals personally and to public health systems generally. Health care systems are under mounting and unsustainable pressure. What is the proper responsibility of individuals, governments and corporate interests working within a global trading environment? When public health care resources are unlikely to increase, we cannot afford to be so diffident to the cost of avoidable diseases.

The Supreme Court decision in Montgomery v Lanarkshire ([2015] UKSC11) has been hailed as a landmark not least because the Court enshrines the doctrine of informed consent formally into English law for the first time in relation to medical treatment. This paper explores the decision in Montgomery. It examines what its implications may be in the future for the consent process in relation to health research and innovative treatment and whether it may prove a watershed moment leading to changing dialogues and expectations in relation to consent. First, the paper explores the concept of ‘informed consent’ in clinical research as seen through international, Council of Europe and EU instruments. Second, it considers how English law currently governs the provision of information to research participants in the context of clinical research. It questions whether such an approach will be sustainable in the future. Third, it discusses the decision of the UK Supreme Court in Montgomery v Lanarkshire and asks what might be the impact of this Supreme Court decision in the health research context. It asks whether Montgomery may result in new approaches to consent in health research and innovative treatment.

This article reviews current trends in patent claims regarding personalised, stratified and precision medicine. These trends are not particularly well understood by policymakers, even less by the public, and are quite recent. Consequently, their implications for the public interest have hardly been thought out. Some see personalised and other secondary drug patent claims as promoting better targeted treatment. Others are inclined to see them as \manifestations of ‘evergreening’ whereby companies are, in some cases quite cynically, trying to extend market monopolies in old products or creating new monopolies based on supposedly improved versions of such earlier drugs. The article claims that the relaxation of ‘novelty’ is a privilege unavailable to inventions in other fields and that on balance the patent system does privilege this industry and that no adequate case has yet been made thus far to prove the public benefits overall.

Regulatory theory is premised on the failure of markets, prompting a focus on regulators and industry from economic perspectives. This article argues that overlooking the public interest in the sustainability of commercial markets risks markets failing completely. This point is exemplified through health care markets – meeting an essential need – and focuses upon innovative medicines as the most desired products in that market. If this seemingly invulnerable market risks failure, there is a pressing need to consider the public interest in sustainable markets within regulatory literature and practice. Innovative medicines are credence goods, meaning that the sustainability of the market fundamentally relies upon the public trusting regulators to vouch for product quality. Yet, quality is being eroded by patent bodies focused on economic benefits from market growth, rather than ensuring innovatory value. Remunerative bodies are not funding medicines relative to market value, and market authorisation bodies are not vouching for robust safety standards or confining market entry to products for ‘unmet medical need’. Arguably, this failure to assure quality heightens the risk of the market failing where it cannot be substituted by the reputation or credibility of providers of goods and/or information such as health care professionals/institutions, patient groups or industry.

Pharmacy services are undoubtedly an important part of primary care. Pharmacists are entrepreneurs and simultaneously they are entrusted with a public mission in the health care sector. Pharmacies then reflect a contrast between a commercial/economic objective and public interest, which is to be identified with citizens’ universal right to health care services. This is the reason why in Italy, as in many other EU countries, pharmacies supply their services according to a prior authorisation granted by public authorities. In common with many EU countries, this authorisation is secured according to a demographic criterion. It is only by means of these licensed pharmacies that citizens can buy drugs under medical prescription. Accordingly, the health system is to be driven by public interest, which has yet to prove how competing interests may be regulated in serving health needs. In the light of EU law, the article advocates for an innovative legal and organisational tool whereby to organise the Italian pharmacy system in order to combine economic consideration and public benefit.