Reflection on the Necessity of the Obtaining Letter of Innocence from the Patient

A brief look at the variation and magnitude of medical errors necessitates that compensatory ways be determined equitably and appropriate to the situations of the society. In this regard, jurisprudential and legal inquiries to determine the compensator for damages is very essential. The crucial matter in this regard is the doctor's guarantee or non-guarantee. One factor that might have such effect is obtaining letter of innocence from the patient, which has also been known as non-guarantee, or non-liability. According to a view, it is necessary to obtain letter of innocence from the patient for not guaranteeing a physician. Other views consider that the mere consent of a patient to receive medical treatment by the physician is sufficient for not being a guarantee. They not only consider that it is necessary to obtain letter of innocence from the patient but also maintain that there is no jurisprudential arguments and legal support for that. The implementation of the first view and consequently not guaranteeing the physician boosts the number of medical errors and further fatalities. Moreover, establishing the validity of such an innocence, which is, in fact, a condition of non-liability, has consequences. Realization of the other view provides the best for both the patient and the physician. Although famous jurists have not decreed on the recent opinion, it has documented based on the opinion of some scholars such as Ibn Idris. The central claim and idea of ​​the current inquiry are to clarify and justify the lack of necessity to obtain letter of innocence from a patient in the context of inaccuracy of the condition of non-liability with a new look at jurisprudential and legal dimensions of the physician's responsibility in a different statement and configuration.