The informed consent doctrine was conceived as a basis for allowing patients to meaningfully participate in the decision-making process. It has evolved into a formal, legal document that reflects a desire by physicians and surgeons to have patients execute "waivers of liability." In the process it has lost its educational value by shifting the emphasis to obtaining a "preoperative release" from an exchange of information upon which a patient can make important decisions about their healthcare choices. This is unfortunate because, in the process, both patients and physicians have suffered. Patients have become alienated from the informed consent process and, paradoxically, physicians and surgeons may have created more liability exposure through this alienation. We propose that by returning to an educational model, the patients will develop a greater sense of control, become more compliant, and potentially experience improved healthcare outcomes. There may also develop an alliance between the patient and the physician or surgeon, such that the seeds of an antagonistic or litigious relationship will not be planted before treatment begins. Liability reduction, therefore, may more likely arise from the educational model.