[Ethical stakes of information in radiation oncology: Thinking the risk and building the therapeutic alliance]. / Enjeux éthiques de l'information en oncologie radiothérapie : penser le risque et construire l'alliance thérapeutique.

Informing patients before receiving radiation therapy is a fundamental ethical imperative. As a condition of the possibility of autonomy, information allows people to make health decisions concerning themselves, which is required by French law. This information includes in particular the potential risks due to radiation therapy. It is therefore necessary to think about what risk is, and how to define and assess it, in order to finally communicate it. The practice of informing people involves many ethical issues relating to the very content of the information, the form in which it is transmitted or even the intention that leads the health professional to say (or not to say) the risk. The transmission of information also questions the way to build a relationship of trust with the patients and how to integrate their own representations about these treatments. Between the risks of paternalism or even defensive medicine, this practice is at the heart of our professional practice.

[Understanding/acceptance of radiotherapy: An ethical dilemma resolved by an ethics of care]. / Compréhension/acceptation de la radiothérapie : un dilemme éthique résolu par une éthique de la considération et de la sollicitude.

PURPOSE: Ethical questions are poorly investigated specifically in radiation oncology. The objective of the study was to identify and understand the main ethical issue in radiation oncology. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A quantitative analysis was based on the answers to a questionnaire of 200 professionals from 22 radiation oncology departments. The questionnaire mainly aimed to characterize the main ethical issue. A monocentric qualitative analysis was based on semi-structured interviews focused on the main identified ethical issue, carried out with eight technologists, and 20 patients undergoing radiotherapy. RESULTS: The main ethical issue was the understanding and/or acceptance of the treatment by the patients (71 %), which frequently arises (more than once a month) (52 %), and corresponds to an ethical tension between the principles of respect for autonomy and beneficence (the good as viewed by the patient) as defined by Beauchamp and Childress. The technologists, wish the patient to be fully involved in his treatment, with the even possibility of refusing it. However, excluding paternalism and autonomic relentlessness, the technologists have the feeling of acting for the good of the patients by treating them with radiation, even if the patients are not always aware of it, because they are within a situation of vulnerability. If the hierarchy of principles is a compromise alternative, this problem is finally well resolved by the effective implementation of an ethic of consideration and solicitude, restoring the patient capabilities, i.e. the maximum development of his potentialities in his situation of vulnerability. Beyond the legal dimension, patient information is crucial and must consider the specific temporality of the patient. CONCLUSION: The main ethical issue in radiation oncology is the understanding and/or acceptance of the treatment involving the development of an ethic of consideration and solicitude.

[Crisis situations: Ethical reflection on prioritization of care access in radiation oncology]. / Situations de crise : réflexion éthique sur la priorisation de l'accès aux soins en oncologie radiothérapie.

Understood as a disruption of the conditions of care practice according to established protocols or procedures, crisis situations in radiation oncology departments can have multiple causes. Their seriousness can sometimes impose changes in the decision-making, organizational or technical paradigms. A possible consequence may be the need to make prioritization decisions in access to care, when there is a mismatch between the care needs of a population and the available health resources (whether technical or human). The specificities of care pathways and the wide variety of clinical situations in radiation oncology make these ethical decisions particularly difficult. Anticipation, collegial and multi-professional decision-making procedures or the integration of patient representatives in these prioritization processes are essential tools. Particular attention must be paid to the information to be provided to patients in a concern of transparency and respect. Prioritization situations are real tests for our departments. They go beyond the purely technical aspect of radiation oncology. They can lead to real ethical suffering for health professionals when their values come up against the limits imposed by crisis situations.

[Ethical stakes in palliative care in radiation oncology]. / Enjeux éthiques de la pratique des soins à visée palliative en oncologie radiothérapique.

In 2021, the Ethics Commission of the SFRO has chosen the issue of the practice of palliative care in radiotherapy oncology. Radiation oncology plays a central role in the care of patients with cancer in palliative phase. But behind the broad name of palliative radiotherapy, we actually find a large variety of situations involving diverse ethical issues. Radiation oncologists have the delicate task to take into account multiple factors throughout a complex decision-making process. While the question of the therapeutic indication and the technical choice allowing it to be implemented remains central, reflection cannot be limited to these decision-making and technical aspects alone. It is also a question of being able to create the conditions for a singularity focused care and to build an authentic care relationship, beyond technicity. It is through this daily ethical work, in close collaboration with patients, and under essential conditions of multidisciplinarity and multiprofessionalism, that our fundamental role as caregiver can be deployed.

[Health democracy: Patient partnership]. / Démocratie sanitaire : le patient partenaire de sa prise en charge.

In 2019, the scientific committee of the French society of radiation oncology (SFRO) created an ethics committee. Its mission is to provide our professional community with food for thought on ethical issues, and to identify its specificities within the radiation oncology departments. For the 2020 annual conference, the commission looked into the evolution of the patient-carer relationship, and more particularly to the strong idea of patient partnership. Indeed, the writing of the White Book of Cancer gave voice to sick people and stressed the need for new devices, such as the Caregiving Time. Patients can no longer be considered as objects of care but as people whose dignity and autonomy must be imperatively respected. The acquisition of knowledge allows a bilateral exchange, prerequisite of a dynamic collaboration. Patients can be partners in their own care, partners in training and research (expert patient), but also partners in health institutions and policies. It is this notion of partnership and involvement of the person in their path of care in radiation oncology that we will analyse here. It will be about defining it, by developing the concept of autonomy, and bringing out its complexity and ambivalence through two examples from our clinical practice: the shared decision-making process for patients with localized prostate cancer and the patient's involvement in the success of his radiotherapy.

[Research ethics: French regulations and applications in radiation oncology]. / Éthique de la recherche : réglementations françaises et applications en oncologie radiothérapie.

French regulations about research ethics are based on the so-called Jardé law, which defines researches involving human beings. Researches involving human beings require the submission of research protocols to a committee for protection of persons with a precise list of documents to submit for a favourable opinion. This law describes different categories of researches and determines the ethical procedures to apply before setting up a research protocol. This issue of categorisation is central and must be taken into account by researchers from the beginning of the research process. Researches considered as not involving human beings also require a set of ethical precautions focused on patients' information and the collection of their non-opposition (due to the application of the General Data Protection Regulation adopted by the European Parliament). Thus, many regulations exist and they require a real work for researchers to meet these requirements in research ethics. This article aims to summarise French regulations. Selected examples are specifically taken into the field of radiation oncology research.

[Limits of technique: Ethical issues]. / Limites de la technique : enjeux éthiques.

Radiation oncology departments are paradigmatic examples of the general evolution of medicine towards an ever more important presence of technology. The distance to the body or our radical dependence on the machine are concrete factors conditioning care practices in radiotherapy. Thus, an essential question appears: can technique be seen as a real limit for our primary function of care in radiation oncology? It is also necessary to consider the postures this question could lead to: the real risk of finding legitimacy in our sole function of technicians. If technique can be seen as a possible hindrance to our care role, it also appears that technique can create unexpected spaces, where radiation oncologists can express their own definition of care with patients. It is time for our community to take into account this specific aspect of the technologic issue in order to attest the reality of its limits and possibilities. A collective reflection on the ethics of technique, and more broadly on the ethics of care practices in radiation oncology appears relevant.

[Prevalence and expectations of "alternative and complementary medicine" use during radiotherapy in 2016: A prospective study]. / Prévalence et attentes de l'utilisation des « médecines alternatives et complémentaires ¼ pendant la radiothérapie en 2016 : étude prospective.

PURPOSE: Alternative and complementary medicine is defined as any substance or technique of non-allopathic medicine used to improve health and quality of life. The purpose of this prospective observational study was to evaluate the use of alternative and complementary medicine during radiotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHODS: A questionnaire was given the last week of treatment to all patients treated for breast cancer, prostate cancer or head and neck cancer in our centre in 2016. RESULTS: In 2016, 132 patients were included. Fifty-seven patients (43%) used alternative and complementary medicine during radiotherapy, more women (61%) than men (35%) (P=0.005). The use of alternative and complementary medicine varied according to locations: 44% of head and neck cancers, 57% of breast cancers and 24% of prostate cancers, but sex was the confounding factor. If alternative and complementary medicine was used before radiotherapy, 82% of patients used it during treatment, compared to 30% if they were naive (P<10-7). Healing touch (68%), homeopathy (26%) and magnetisers (21%) were the most used alternative and complementary medicines. Sixty-one percent of patients used alternative and complementary medicine to reduce skin and mucosal side effects of treatments, 28% to improve well-being, and 9% to treat cancer. Seventy-two percent of all patients would advise their loved one to use an alternative and complementary medicine and 87% would like information about them in the hospital. CONCLUSION: Alternative and complementary medicines are used more by women, and by patients who used them before radiotherapy. The desired effects are mainly to reduce the side effects of the treatments. More than 80% of patients, whether or not they use alternative and complementary medicine, demand medical information.