[Perioperative conflicts between anaesthesiologists and surgeons: ethics and professionalism]. / Conflits en période périopératoire: un enjeu collectif, éthique et professionnel.

In the perioperative period, several potential conflicts between anaesthetists/intensive care specialists and surgeons may exist. They are detrimental to the quality of patient care and to the well-being of the teams. They are a source of medical errors and contribute to burn-out. Patients can become the victims of such conflicts, which deserve ethical reflection. Their resolution through analysis and shared solutions is necessary. This article seeks to analyse these conflicts, taking into account their specificities and constraints. In order to understand this context, it is important to consider the specificities of each group involved and the records of such situations. Several factors can prevent these conflicts, first and foremost the patients themselves and the quality of the care that is provided. Medical deontology aims mainly at preventing and resolving these conflicts. Generally speaking, the quality approach which is increasingly applied in health care institutions (involving declarations of adverse events, morbidity/mortality reviews, benchmarking, analysis and improvement of practices, etc.) also contributes to the prevention and resolution of disagreements. The teaching of communication techniques that begins with the initial training, the evaluation of team behaviours (through simulation training for example), the respect of others' constraints, particularly when it comes to learning, as well as transparency regarding conflicts of interests, are all additional elements of conflict prevention. Lastly, conflicts may at times be caused by deviant behaviours, which must be met with a clear and uncompromising collective and institutional approach. This article concludes by offering a standardised approach for conflict resolution.

Critical appraisal of organ procurement under Maastricht 3 condition.

The ethics committee of the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (Sfar) has been requested by the French Biomedical Agency to consider the issue of organ donation in patients after the decision to withdraw life-supportive therapies has been taken. This type of organ donation is performed in the USA, Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium. The three former countries have published recommendations formalizing procedures and operations. The French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (Société française d'anesthésie et de reanimation [Sfar]) ethics committee has considered this issue and envisioned the different aspects of the whole process. Consequently, it sounded a note of caution regarding the applicability of this type of organ procurement in unselected patients following a decision to withdraw life-supportive therapies. According to French regulations concerning organ procurement in brain-dead patients, the committee stresses the need to restrict this specific way of procurement to severely brain-injured patients, once confirmatory investigations predicting a catastrophic prognosis have been performed. This suggests that the nature of the confirmatory investigation required should be formalized by the French Biomedical Agency on behalf of the French parliamentarians, which should help preserve population trust regarding organ procurement and provide a framework for medical decision. This text has been endorsed by the Sfar.

[Euthanasia, assisted suicide and palliative care: a review by the Ethics Committee of the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care]. / Fin de vie, euthanasie et suicide assisté : une mise au point de la Société française d'anesthésie et de réanimation (Sfar).

CONTEXT: Management of the end of life is a major social issue which was addressed in France by law, on April 22nd 2005. Nevertheless, a debate has emerged within French society about the legalization of euthanasia and/or assisted suicide (E/AS). This issue raises questions for doctors and most especially for anesthetists and intensive care physicians. OBJECTIVE: To highlight, dispassionately and without dogmatism, key points taken from the published literature and the experience of countries which have legislated for E/AS. RESULTS: The current French law addresses most of the end of life issues an intensive care physician might encounter. It is credited for imposing palliative care when therapies have become senseless and are withdrawn. However, this requirement for palliative care is generally applied too late in the course of a fatal illness. There is a great need for more education and stronger incentives for early action in this area. On the rare occasions when E/AS is requested, either by the patient or their loved-ones, it often results from a failure to consider that treatments have become senseless and conflict with patient's best interest. The implementation of E/AS cannot be reduced to a simple affirmation of the Principle of autonomy. Such procedures present genuine difficulties and the risk of drift. CONCLUSION: We deliver a message of prudence and caution. Should we address painful end of life and moral suffering issues, by suppressing the subject, i.e. ending the patient's life, when comprehensive palliative care has not first been fully granted to all patients in need of it ?

[Critical appraisal of organ procurement under Maastricht 3 condition]. / Analyse critique du prélèvement en condition M3 de Maastricht.

The ethics committee of the French Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care (Sfar) has been requested by the French Biomedical Agency to consider the issue of organ donation in patients after a decision of withdrawing life supporting therapies has been taken. This category of organ donation is performed in the USA, Canada, United Kingdom, the Netherlands and Belgium. The three former countries have published recommendations, which formalize procedures and operations. The Sfar ethics committee has considered this issue and envisioned the different aspects of the whole process. Consequently, it sounds a note of caution regarding the applicability of this type of organ procurement in unselected patient following a decision to withdraw life supporting therapies. According to the French regulation concerning organ procurement in brain dead patients, the committee stresses the need to restrict this specific way of procurement to severely brain injured patients, once confirmatory investigations predicting a catastrophic prognosis have been performed. It suggests that the nature of the confirmatory investigation required should be formalized by the French Biomedical Agency on behalf of the French parliamentarians. This should help preserving population trust regarding organ procurement and provide a framework to medical decision. This text has been endorsed by the Sfar.