Surgeon: Saviour or Guilty?

The patient's information and his consent to surgery makes the relationship between the patient and the surgeon well balanced. The duty of information weighing on the practitioner finds its roots in the respect of the constitutional principle of safety of human being. The information relates, notably, to serious risks, even to those occurring exceptionally. Because each practitioner has to exercise his profession independently; he must respect individually the aforementioned duty. It belongs to the surgeon to prove by all means that he has fulfilled his obligation; it is not the patient who has to prove the lack of information. In case of difficulty or complication, the practitioner must inform the patient thereof in order to avoid any conflict: the bed side manner. The lack of information gives rise to civil liability, not criminal. It is sanctioned by damages repairing the loss of chance for the patient to having refused the surgery, had he been informed about the risks, or repairing the prejudice relating to the lack of psychological preparation to the risk that occurred during the surgery.If the mistake is not a fault, there are different categories of faults: diagnosis, prescription, technical fault, prosthesis setting, watch or post-surgery diagnosis, nosocomial infections.The compensation for the therapeutic risk and the distinction between civil and liability have appeased the relationships patient-practitioner and practitioner-judge.