J.Y. Interpretation No. 767 regarded the disclosures from physicians and the descriptions on the drug label as the ways which enable the patients gain the reasonable foreseeability about the adverse reaction of the drug taken, and consequently led to them being barred from relief by Drug Injury Relief Act. However, the informed consent doctrine is proposed to protect the personal rights of patients rather than exempting them from relief. Moreover, the description of adverse effects on drug label is the record of the result and conclusion of clinical trial, which represents itself as a permissible risk to exempt the pharmaceutical factory from illegality and is not necessarily compatible with the “common and foreseeable adverse reaction from drug usage” stipulated in Drug Injury Relief Act. The contemporary application of 1% as the cut-off criteria to “common” adverse reaction when apply the Drug Injury Relief Act is a trade-off between the gains and losses of patients and pharmaceutical factory. However, this cutoff level would be subject to change according to the health policy, the development trends of pharmaceutical industry and the sustainability of Drug Injury Relief System.