What is the test for determining whether a doctor's failure to properly advise a patient of the risks associated with a proposed course of medical treatment?

The test for determining whether a doctor’s failure to properly advise a patient of the risks associated with a proposed course of medical treatment has been described as a “modified objective test” (Arndt v. Smith (1997), 1997 CanLII 360 (SCC), 35 B.C.L.R. (3d) 187 (S.C.C.)). In the words of Cory J. (at para. 6), the court must: ...consider what the reasonable patient in the circumstances of the plaintiff would have done if faced with the same situation. The trier of fact must take into consideration any “particular concerns” of the patient and any “special considerations affecting the particular patient” in determining whether the patient would have refused treatment if given all of the information about the possible risks. (emphasis in the original)