Informed Consent — ORE Part 1 MCQ
Instant feedback + full explanation. One question, done properly.
Educational content. Not a substitute for clinical judgement or local policy.
Reveal the answer and explanation
Correct answer: C — A patient must be informed of any material risks that a reasonable person in their position would regard as significant to the decision
Montgomery (2015) established that consent is valid when a patient is aware of material risks that a reasonable person in their position would attach significance to (Option A). This replaced the previous paternalistic 'Bolam' standard where doctors judged what information to disclose. Option A is incorrect because Montgomery does not require disclosure of all risks, only *material* ones. Option E reflects the old Bolam test that Montgomery overruled. Option B imposes an arbitrary probability threshold not in the ruling. Option D conflates the existence of information with the medium of documentation; Montgomery requires informed consent but does not mandate written consent for all procedures. The test is patient-centred ('reasonable person standard') and significance-based ('material risks'), not doctor-determined or probability-threshold-based.
Reference: Montgomery v Lanarkshire Health Board [2015] UKSC 11; NHS England (2015) Shared Decision-Making guidance; Royal College of Surgeons of England (2016) Consent: Supported Decision-Making, https://www.england.nhs.uk/personalisedcare/shared-decision-making/why-is-shared-decision-making-important/shared-decision-making-to-comply-with-national-legislation-and-policy/