Adentist filling a child's cavities used a newly developed local anesthetic that was more effective than novocain. however, it carried a 1% risk of causing a serious seizure when administered to children, which the dentist did not mention to the child's mother or note in the consent forms, which stated only that a local anesthetic would be used. the child's dental work was completed without any problem, but the mother looked up the anesthetic on the internet and learned about the risk. she complained to the dentist that she would not have consented to use of the anesthetic had she known of the risk, but the dentist argued that using the new anesthetic was justified in the child's case because otherwise he would not have been willing to sit still for the dental work. does the mother have a cause of action on behalf of the child against the dentist? a yes, because a reasonable person would have considered information about the risk important. b yes, because the mother would not have consented to the use of the anesthetic if she had known of the risk of seizure. c no, because the dentist used his best judgment in deciding that the benefits of using the anesthetic outweighed the risk. d no, because the child suffered no harm from use of the anesthetic.