Adolescents and Young Adults with Cancer and the Desire for Parenthood-A Legal View from a Swiss Perspective in Consideration of the Relevance of Cancer Support Organizations.

This commentary focuses on the challenges and possibilities that adolescents and young adults with cancer (AYA) desiring parenthood face under Swiss law. The regulation of reproductive medicine procedures is stricter in Switzerland than in some other countries. Health insurance is compulsory, but the interventions that are covered are in constant flux. Recent changes pertain to the possibilities of future AYA parenthood and keeping up to date with practical and legal ramifications is taxing even for health professionals. AYA facing treatment decisions are uniquely vulnerable and dependent on comprehensive, clear, current, and country-specific information regarding risks and options pertaining to their fertility. This commentary provides a short overview of the Swiss legal framework related to reproductive medicine, highlighting its access restrictions and prohibitions, as well as recent changes. While the importance of patient, peer, caregiver, and interest groups supporting people affected by health conditions has long been recognized in many countries, an AYA organization was only recently established in Switzerland. Such organizations are vital for providing accurate, country-specific information and support, while individualized medical guidance, informed by the most current legal framework and its consequences, remains essential in addressing AYAs' specific needs in connection with the desire to have children.

Defining Criteria for Guiding Cancer Patients to Find a Reputable Complementary Medicine Provider: Results of a Literature Review and a Consensus Procedure.

PURPOSE: Even in cases of positive evidence for complementary medicine (CM) therapies, it is still difficult for cancer patients to identify reputable providers. The aim of this study was to develop and evaluate a criteria list to provide guidance to cancer patients seeking a reputable CM provider. METHODS: The design combined a literature review, an expert consensus procedure (n=15) and an assessment from three stakeholder perspectives (patients (n=18), CM providers (n=26) and oncology physicians (n=20)). RESULTS: A total of 30 existing CM criteria were extracted from the literature, and 12 more were added by the experts. The main challenge was to define criteria that could easily be applied by the patients. A final comprehensive list of 8 criteria guiding cancer patients to find a reputable CM provider was developed. CONCLUSION: Health professionals and cancer information services might find the criteria list helpful when aiming to strengthen patients' awareness of quality-related factors associated with CM providers. The criteria developed might be helpful when standards are established for quality assurance in CM in oncology.