Ace the FOCL Exam 2025 – Lead with Confidence and Conquer Your Path!

The answer is correct because consent is a fundamental legal principle in medical procedures. If Natalie provided informed consent for the tooth extraction, it means she agreed to undergo the procedure after being fully informed about its nature, risks, and benefits. In this case, Dr. Mark would not be found liable for any offense since the consent effectively legitimizes the procedure he performed.

Negligent conduct could arise if there were a failure to meet a standard of care, but this would not apply if the procedure was correctly performed with appropriate consent. Assault typically involves an intentional act that causes fear of imminent harm, which does not apply here if she consented. Medical malpractice usually requires a breach of the duty of care that leads to harm, which again does not apply if the procedure was performed with valid consent. Thus, in the context of this scenario, Dr. Mark has not committed any offense related to the tooth extraction procedure.