[The anaesthetist's liability and bullfights]. / Responsabilité de l'anesthésiste et corrida.

Whether you are an aficionado or completely uninitiated, everyone has an opinion on bull-fighting. The bull-fighter is in constant risk of injury. A medical team made up of surgeons, anesthetists, emergency physicians and nurses remains present throughout the show. For the anaesthetist and surgeon, a wounded bullfighter is an emergency because the vital and functional prognosis are engaged. The team must act in conformity with normal practice and the Code of Medical Ethics because any lack of coordination between the practitioners is punishable by law in the same way as technical fault. Several specific aspects of this type of medical procedure should be highlighted: firstly, the legal restrictions within the corrida, and secondly, the nature of the medical team, which may be comprised of doctors normally based within a public health institution and others who practice in a private health establishment. The particularity of the situation reveals differences in the system of liability, and civil liability must be distinguished from administrative liability: both of these allow the victim to obtain compensation for harm caused, but the consequences of each are different according to doctor status. The fact that the anaesthetists frequently work on a voluntary and benevolent basis does not exonerate them from liability. Lastly, a question frequently addressed is whether or not the doctor is covered by his professional insurance when he is on ringside duty.

End-of-life patients, intensive care and consent: difficulties facing French intensivists.

BACKGROUND: The French legislature passed a law in 2005 that assigns a new role to the physician and redefines his liability in end-of-life decisions. METHOD: This law is presented and discussed in context with current French legal practice. RESULTS: This law emphasizes patient autonomy, advocating that the patient be fully informed before treatment, and creates specific procedures to be followed according to whether the patient is conscious or unconscious. In the latter situation, the law reinforces the role of both the patient's surrogate and the patient's advance directives in establishing consent. In these extreme situations, doctors have the option to request a second medical opinion. This joint decision-making procedure is laid down by law and becomes obligatory in the interests of transparency. CONCLUSION: Respect for patients' consent implies the possibility that they may refuse medical care, creating an ethical and legal dilemma of providing medical care or respecting the patients' wishes. The key issue concerning end-of-life patients rests in the decisions taken concerning the continuation or withdrawal of life support and the administration of palliative care.

Comment on the provisions of the French laws of 6 August 2004 and 8 December 2004 relative to the protection of genetic inventions.

The question of gene patentability has raised some opposition in France. Too broad a definition of the rights conferred by patent would hamper the development of research. The French legislature strictly defined genetic inventions in the Laws of 6 August 2004 and 8 December 2004. Exclusivity of use applies only to the function or functions precisely described in the patent application. Potential abusive use of rights by the holder of the patent has also been addressed through reinforcement of the provisions of the Code of Intellectual Property to combat such abuse. The Laws we discuss smooth the way to the granting of dependency licenses and broaden the field of application of ex officio licenses. The French legislature has achieved satisfactory balance between the legal protection of genetic inventions necessary to finance research, and the free circulation of scientific knowledge indispensable for medical progress.