Sir, the authors have drilled into the landmark case of Montgomery (Appellant) v Lanarkshire Health Board (Respondent) (Scotland) The Supreme Court. Hilary Term [2015] UKSC 11 On appeal from: [2013] CSIH 3; [2010] CSIH 104), recently heard by their Lordships (Br Dent J 2015;219: 57–59).

As they state, there is agreement between the ethical codes advised by the General Dental Council (in Standards for the dental team and in particular the earlier GDC guidance Principles of patient consent) and the General Medical Council, and this Supreme Court judgement. But how can a dentist assess 'material risk' and the 'values' a patient ascribes to that particular treatment?

An approach has been described by Shokrollahi (Ann R Coll Surg Engl 2010;92: 93–100), that has been summarised in this Journal's abstracts section (Br Dent J DOI: 10.1038/sj.bdj.2010.541). In this, the patient is invited to complete a request for treatment form. In carrying this out 1) the practitioner shares information with the patient as to the benefits and risks of the procedure, 2) the patient is then asked to put down in their own words on the request for treatment form what they have understood by the discussion, 3) the patient is invited to state their decision, and finally, 4) affirms this by the customary 'symbolic signature'. In addition, completing a request for treatment form is a 'soft' method (for the practitioner) of assessing capacity.

The completed request for treatment form is filed in the case-notes as evidence of valid consent.

Request for treatment forms are available for download from www.rft.org.uk.

1. London 2. Dundee