[Informed consent]

Once the stage of health paternalism, exercised so many times under the pretext of the principle of benevolence, has been overcome, treatment relationships level off, they become symmetrical and balanced and in this climate of a "therapeutic alliance", both parties, the patient and the health professional, have to merge their capabilities and their limitations. The health professional can not impose general character operational methods to follow to a patient nor interventions, even though clinically correct, against a patient's will; but neither does a patient have the right to obtain treatment in accordance with his desires if these are found to be in disagreement with concrete clinical recommendations for the case dealt with according to the health professional's criteria. We can summarize what has just been stated in two basic principles: 1. The health professional is not obliged to follow the requests of a patient if he/she does not consider these clinically appropriate, but in order to follow a different treatment method, the health professional must have the consent of the patient. 2. In any case, if a patient opposes a treatment being applied to him/her, except in the few legally recognized exceptions, the health professional can try to persuade a patient to accept recommended treatment, but never can carry out treatment against the patient's will.