What is the current state of the law on full disclosure and informed consent?

Hopp v. Lepp and Reibl v. Hughes have put full disclosure and informed consent into a new prospective and have given them new emphasis. They have not, with respect, provided for a "formula" or "a hard and fast rule" requiring that certain elements of full disclosure or specific items of information be found, in so many words, and checked off, but rather a new approach taking into consideration all the circumstances. What is a material risk in this case? This is a key question? Did the risk materialize is another? The general tone of the explanation is for consideration--the precise words used and what may reasonably be taken from them. The extent to which the profession is or was divided in approach is a consideration.