Abstract
Recently the term, "informed consent" is widely heard in our society. If informed consent is truly practiced, we can expect as a result; medical treatment to be heightened, the incidents of medical malpractice reduced, and improved relations between doctors and patients. A Supreme Court decision rendered in 2000 is expected to be a driving force in having informed consent practiced in our medical field. This article explains the liability of doctors regarding informed consent, while considering the main points and significance of this decision and the legal extent of its influence. Since the patient at issue was one of Jehovah's Witnesses, the article mainly analyzes the legal issue of the refusal of blood transfusions and the matter of informed consent.
