A dentist explains the procedure for placing a crown but only mentions common risks like temporary sensitivity. The patient later suffers from irreversible pulpitis, a rare but serious complication that was not discussed. According to the principles established by the UK Supreme Court in *Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board*, has the dentist obtained valid consent?
-
A
Yes, because the dentist acted in line with what a responsible body of dentists would have disclosed (the Bolam test).
-
B
No, because the dentist failed to disclose a material risk that a reasonable person in the patient's position would likely attach significance to.
-
C
Yes, because the risk of irreversible pulpitis was too rare to be considered a mandatory disclosure.
-
D
No, because all possible risks, however minor or rare, must be disclosed for consent to be valid.