What are the relevant considerations for a reasonable man in his position when deciding whether to consent to or reject surgery?

At p. 35 D.L.R., p. 928 S.C.R. of his judgment in Reibl v. Hughes, Laskin C.J.C. said that relevant considerations for a reasonable man in the plaintiff’s position when deciding whether to consent to or reject surgery, were: Relevant in this case to the issue whether a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position would have declined surgery at the particular time is the fact that he was within about one and one-half years of earning pension benefits if he continued at his job; that there was no neurological deficit then apparent; that there was no immediate emergency making the surgery imper­ative; that there was a grave risk of a stroke or worse during or as a result of the operation, while the risk of a stroke without it was in the future, with no precise time fixed or which could be fixed except as a guess of three or more years ahead. Since, on the trial Judge’s finding, the plaintiff was under the mistaken impression, as a result of the defendant’s breach of the duty of disclosure, that the surgery would relieve his continuing headaches, this would in the opinion of a reasonable person in the plaintiff’s position, also weigh against submitting to the surgery at the particular time.