Organ donation in France: legislation, epidemiology and ethical comments.

The Bioethics Laws revised in 2004 have defined rules concerning organ donation and transplantation. They have also permitted the creation of the French Biomedicine Agency which guarantees the right of enforcement. In France there are three situations in which organs may be harvested: from cadaveric donors, from living donors and, since 2005, from non heart beating donors.

[Recovery of transportable organs after cardiac arrest].

The transplant of an allograft after cardiac arrest has been allowed in France since 2005 (decree of 2 august 2005: art R.1232-4-1, 2 and 3 of the public health code). Recently, according to the international scale, 4 situations that could lead to the realization of transplantable organs after cardiac arrest were identified according to a classification called "Maastricht" which describes the potential donors.

[Safety and accuracy of surgical procedures: case law evolution].

Surgeons, like other doctors, practice their profession within a framework of contractual liability defined by statute in 1936. This established that the doctor was subject to a contractual obligation to provide appropriate and diligent care. Care and technical acts should conform to those which would have been provided by a prudent doctor within the standards of knowledge and practice of his field; care which deviates from this standard would be considered medical error or fault.

Practitioner sex abuse: occurrence, prevention and disciplinary sanction.

Studies put forward figures for male practitioner sex abuse of around ten per cent. This practice, which is contrary to medical ethics, is highly reprehensible in ethical terms. The assaults range from uninvited meddling in patients' sexual lives to proven rape and inappropriate touching.

Recognition by French courts of compensation for post-vaccination multiple sclerosis: the consequences with regard to expert practice.

Over the past few years, despite scientific uncertainties, French courts have awarded compensation to sufferers of multiple sclerosis (MS) which occurred following vaccination against hepatitis B. These legal decisions have aroused fierce criticism in the medical world. Both a judgment given on 25 May 2004 by the Court of Cassation and a new publication in the journal Neurology have encouraged us to look once more at this controversial issue.