{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02251552795031056, 'fraction_numerical': 0.003105590062111801, 'mean_word_length': 5.349753694581281, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
[Prospective study of the specific liability of the plastic surgeon].

The authors of the article first pose this question: might plastic surgery not fit into the general principles that guide any medical procedure? The general principles, especially as regards the distinction between liabilities in terms of means and liabilities in terms of results, are discussed in the first part of the survey. The authors then demonstrate that the plastic surgeon does differ from other surgeons: he has to comply with the same restraints as any surgeon. However, the survey then presents certain aspects specific to this branch of surgery, and their implications in terms of responsibilities. The article successively discusses: the patient's freedom of choice, the need for particularly thorough information and its form, the limits to the practitioner's freedom in choosing the technique, and most importantly the so-called obligation to avoid (which the authors study in particular detail in the field of analysis and responsibilities) of obviously useless operations. The authors, after recalling important recent legal precedents, come to the conclusion that it is necessary to establish an institution: "the medical ombundsman" defined by a bill in the 1988 sitting of the French Parliament.