False. It's very mechanically simple, and we've been doing similar procedures in more mainstream applications for decades. It's a thing directly under skin, that's all. The main unique risk, assuming proper material is used, is simple rejection. Not much different from a piercing. Although in this case, undoubtedly a bigger scar would be involved if you allowed it to continue. And there's the standard stuff in any case where a wound is created -- infection, abscess, etc. There may also be a chance of shifting of the implant in some parts of the body.
Most body modification procedures, no matter how bizarre they may look, are re-purposing of very common, simple, and well-understood procedures. The reason is because body modification artists have to be able to perform it safely without lots of gadgetry, and the client has to be able to tolerate the procedure. Believe it or not, most practitioners who do things like this are actually quite knowledgeable and selective about their clients, and most have multiple certifications for hygiene, emergency measures, and various other kinds of training.
None of it is terribly complex or cutting-edge, medically speaking. They're just using it for stuff that looks "weird" to you.
But even if that weren't the case, that doesn't mean they couldn't consent anyway. If they understand risks are unknown, then that's their decision to make.
To re-use one of my earlier examples, most early eye correction patients really had no idea what the risks are because there was no data -- and we didn't learn there can be distant future risks until people had them a long time later, obviously.
They were still considered competent to consent, despite the many unknowns about it at the time.
The only reason you think this is different is because you think it looks weird (ignoring the fact that we actually do know the risks for these kinds of things anyway).
