the physician determined that surgery (laparoscopy) was required in order to remove a tumor from his stomach. The patient suffered from a gastrointestinal perforation as a result of the surgery. He sued the physician and requested compensation based on the fact that he was not provided information on the risks of the surgery. The case was brought before the competent court. Where it decided that the patient should bear the burden of proof. When it was brought before the Court of Cassation, it overturned the decision of the lower court and decided that the burden of proof of the patient’s informed consent should be placed on the physician. This decision was the first of its kind, reminding people of a previous decision issued by the same court on 29 May 1951.4 The court issued this decision based on article (1315) of France’s Civil Law. It decided that “the physician has an obligation to give information to the patient on the risks of the therapeutic intervention he might go through, and so he must prove that he fulfilled that. The decision of the lower court, therefore, was issued in contravention of the relevant provision”. Article (1315), which the court referred to in its decision, states that “A person who claims the performance of an obligation must prove it. Reciprocally, a person who claims to have performed must substantiate the payment or the fact which has produced the extinguishment of his obligation.”5 Informing the patient of the risks of therapeutic intervention means offering the patient detailed information on the intended medical intervention about to be performed and its expected effects or repercussions.6 In light of this, the French Court of Cassation, followed by the State’s Council in 2000, indirectly decided that the physician’s obligation to give information to his patient on the nature and risk of the therapeutic intervention about to be performed is a result-based obligation not due diligence-based. Additionally, the information disclosed to a physician during the course of the patient-physician relationship should be kept confidential by the physician to the utmost degree. With regard to the physicians’ obligations to make sure that their performance of therapeutic intervention will not put the health of the patient at risk, this applies to all forms of medical practice, including injections, vaccinations, medical analyses and medical devices. They are also bound to 4 Qasim, pp. 117-121. Bakir al-Sheikh, Physician’s Legal Responsibility: a study on general rules of comparative policies of laws and judicial attitudes, (Jordan; al-Hamid House for Publication and Distribution, 2002), p. 88. 6 Qasim, pp. 90-91. 5 3