Clinical ethics has developed significantly in Europe over the past 15 years and remains an evolving process. While sharing our experiences in different European settings, we were surprised to discover marked differences in our practice, especially regarding the position and role of patients. In this paper, we describe these differences, such as patient access to and participation or representation in ethics consults. We propose reasons to explain these differences, hypothesizing that they relate to the historic and sociocultural context of implementation (...) of clinical ethics consultation services (Cecs), as well as the initial aims for which each structure was established. Then, we analyse those differences with common ethical arguments arising in patient involvement. We conclude that there is no unique model of best practice for patient involvement in clinical ethics, as far as Cecs reflect on how to deal with the challenging ethical issues raised by patient role and position. (shrink)

The Clinical ethics centre in Paris offers its services equally to doctors and patients/proxies. Its primary goal is to re-equilibrate doctor–patient roles through giving greater voice to patients individually in medical decisions. Patients are present at virtually all levels, initiating consults, providing their point of view and receiving feedback. The implications of patients' involvement are threefold. At an operational level, decision-making is facilitated by repositioning the debate on ethical grounds and introducing a dynamic of decisional partnership, although contact with patients (...) can make it difficult to deny their demands and set the limits of our role. Ethically, it reinforces patients' autonomy and grants them a place of veritable ethics ‘actors’, with the danger that this may become excessively autonomy oriented. Finally, at a collective level, the programme fulfils its political purpose in promoting patients' rights and the ideal of démocratie sanitaire, but complicates balancing individual demands with collective values. (shrink)

This paper will present and discuss our conclusions about the ethics of living donation for liver transplant (LDLT) after 8 year of collaboration between our clinical ethics consultation service and liver transplant teams, in the course of which we met with all donor-candidates. We will focus on the results of a follow-up study that was conducted in order to evaluate the long-term consequences for potential donors and to interview them on the ethical aspects of the screening process. This study was (...) conducted from April 2007 to November 2009 and consisted of interviews with donor-candidates, regardless of whether they underwent harvest surgery, at least 1 year after the recipient’s transplant. We explored their views about their own and the recipients’ physical and psychological condition, changes in family and career dynamics, their experience as potential or real donors, and their views about LDLT process in general. Results shed new light on the ethical grounds of LDLT and allow us to envisage new ways of improving the ethical soundness of current procedures and practices. In particular, we argue that the purpose of an ethics committee should be to provide follow-up support for the donors rather than merely to check the freedom of donors’ consent. We also suggest that the recipient’s consent deserves more attention than it currently receives. (shrink)