[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.

[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.

[Withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration in severe stroke: medical, legal and ethical considerations]. / Aspects médicaux, législatifs et éthiques de l'arrêt de la nutrition et de l'hydratation artificielles dans l'accident vasculaire cérébral grave.

In the majority of cases, severe stroke is accompanied by difficulty in swallowing and an altered state of consciousness requiring artificial nutrition and hydration. Because of their artificial nature, nutrition and hydration are considered by law as treatment rather basic care. Withdrawal of these treatments is dictated by the refusal of unreasonable obstinacy enshrined in law and is justified by the risk of severe disability and very poor quality of life. It is usually the last among other withholding and withdrawal decisions which have already been made during the long course of the disease. Reaching a collegial consensus on a controversial decision such as artificial nutrition and hydration withdrawal is a difficult and complex process. The reluctance for such decisions is mainly due to the symbolic value of food and hydration, to the fear of "dying badly" while suffering from hunger and thirst, and to the difficult distinction between this medical act and euthanasia. The only way to overcome such reluctance is to ensure flawless accompaniment, associating sedation and appropriate comfort care with a clear explanation (with relatives but also caregivers) of the rationale and implications of this type of decision. All teams dealing with this type of situation must have thoroughly thought through the medical, legal and ethical considerations involved in making this difficult decision.