The obligation of the physician to inform the patient -- which he has to prove in a case of a suit -- is based on the patient's right of self-determination. This self-decision information was subject of the panel discussion. Not discussed in detail were the information concerning diagnosis and prognosis, and the instruction of the patient regarding his conduct postoperatively and during medical treatment. Not considered was the so-called malpractice and negligence respectively. Medical liability suits are increasing for various reasons and are frequently directed at a failure to inform the patient because the patient is often unable to prove a negligence of the physician ("surrogate liability"). The dimension of the duty of disclosure (complete information -- no information at all) is discussed in general and with special regard to the Ear-Nose- and Throat field. Special questions are answered regarding otoplasty, middle ear surgery, transplantations, extension of laryngeal surgery without prior informed consent, paranasal sinus and rhinobasis operations as well as surgery in minors and foreigners. In cases of non-vital indication and particularly in plastic-cosmetic procedures and outsider methods the requirements for informed consent are particularly important. The so-called rate of complications has perhaps a relative, but never an absolute meaning, and even this only in connection with the other circumstances of an individual case. The evidence of an adequate informed consent which must be included in a physician -- patient-dialogue is most convincing by means of a written consent and the additional signature of a witness, perhaps also of the patient. The value, the problems and even the risks of an information based only on forms or brochures is discussed in detail. The panel discussion from the four points of view of the organizers should by no means confuse the otorhinolaryngologist. It should inform him about the medicolegal aspects of his activity and protect him from avoidable burdens.