Weil Z
Med Law. 1998;17(2):243-61.
The ideological foundation of the doctrine of "informed consent" is rooted in the concept of personal freedom and freedom of choice. The concept of individual autonomy is represented by the "reasonable patient" standard which requires the disclosure of all information which a reasonable person in the position of the patient would need in order to make a rational decision regarding a proposed medical treatment. This attitude, however, conflicts with the traditional paternalism which is reflected in the "reasonable physician" standard, that is that a doctor must disclose that medical information which a rational doctor would relate to a patient in order to receive his consent. The enactment of the Patients' Rights Law in Israel in 1996 was an essential turning point in Israeli medical law. Section 13 of the new law explicitly establishes the requirement of informed consent and the details which a doctor must relate to a patient in order to reach the said agreement. Nevertheless, the law does not state the standard according to which it should be assessed whether the disclosure was proper. In a recent decision (C.A. 434/94 Shai Berman et al. v. Mor--the Institute for Medical Information, Ltd.) the Israeli Supreme Court took a step forward and determined that the duty to inform a patient will be judged by recognised criteria of negligence as they apply to the merits of each case.
“知情同意”原则的思想基础源于个人自由和选择自由的概念。个人自主的概念由“理性患者”标准体现，该标准要求披露处于患者位置的理性人在对拟议的医疗治疗做出理性决策时所需的所有信息。然而，这种态度与传统家长主义相冲突，传统家长主义体现在“理性医生”标准中，即医生必须披露理性医生会向患者说明以获得其同意的医疗信息。1996年以色列《患者权利法》的颁布是以色列医疗法的一个关键转折点。新法律第13条明确规定了知情同意的要求以及医生为达成上述协议必须向患者说明的细节。然而，法律并未规定应根据何种标准来评估披露是否恰当。在最近的一项裁决（最高法院行政上诉案第434/94号，沙伊·伯曼等人诉莫尔——医疗信息有限公司）中，以色列最高法院向前迈进了一步，裁定告知患者的义务将根据适用于每个案件案情的公认过失标准来判断。
