A modified objective analysis is used to determine whether a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have undergone the same surgery if properly informed of the risks: Reibl at pp. 898-900. The question is whether a “reasonable person” who possesses the patient’s reasonable beliefs, fears, desires and expectations would have undergone surgery if fully informed: Arndt v. Smith, 1997 CanLII 360 (SCC),  2 S.C.R. 539 at para. 9.
Information about the risks attendant on surgery need not come from the physician. It is sufficient if some responsible person, such as a medical office assistant, provides the patient with information about the risks: Maher v. Sutton, 2013 BCSC 1808 at paras. 81-82.
"The most advanced legal research software ever built."
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.