The Conseil d'Etat, the supreme jurisdiction on legislative matters in Fran
ce, rendered its decree on January 5, 2000, founding its decision on jurisp
rudence established in 1997 and 1998 by the supreme Court of Appeals. In ac
cordance with this decision, physicians have a legal obligation to inform p
atients of all possible risks, including very exceptional risks. The inform
ation may be given to the patient in any appropriate form. Proof that infor
mation was delivered to the patient is incumbent upon the physician. When p
roof of information delivery is provided, any injury compensation can only
be awarded on the grounds of ill-fate. We conducted an objective review of
the jurisprudence on patient information and report the three basic aspects
observed in the current situation in France.
In application of the Court of Appeals judgments of February 25, 1997 and O
ctober 14, 1997, proof of delivery of information to the patient is incumbe
nt upon the physician. The question is whether the physician must retain wr
itten documents as necessary proof against future claims. The answer to thi
s question is not straightforward. A written document is not the only proof
accepted by the court and could even be of debatable legal value if used i
nappropriately. The solution retained by the Conseil d'Etat is a good examp
le.
The real debate concerns the information content It now appear; that the ph
ysician is required to inform his/her patient of all risks susceptible of i
nfluencing the patient's decision, particularly serious or life-threatening
risks, but also, and most certainly, risks that in the past have been cons
idered frequent but benign.
Finally, the judges recall that failure to provide information does not in
itself assert the physician's civil responsibility, proof of real damage is
also needed. But the reality of damage (ill-fate) depends on the reality o
f the choice open to the patient had he/she been informed. And the true nat
ure of the choice open to the patient is simply the expression of the dispe
nsable or indispensable nature of the envisaged act. One could say the old
adage primum non nocere is making a comeback.