Ethics and clinical research: How can the Ethics Committees (CPPs) and Committees for Research Ethics (CER) evolve?

In line with the spirit of the Giens workshops, this article reports on the recommended evolution of the Ethics Committees (CPPs) and the Committees for Research Ethics (CER) in France. These committees play a crucial role in the ethical evaluation of clinical research projects, a process that has become more complex, particularly in view of recent legislative, regulatory and methodological developments. This reflection highlights the current challenges faced by the CPPs, including the increasing workload, the complexity of the issues to be addressed and the need for better use of their resources.

Healthcare workers' opinions on non-medical criteria for prioritisation of access to care during the pandemic.

Introduction: The COVID-19 pandemic generated overflow of healthcare systems in several countries. As the ethical debates focused on prioritisation for access to care with scarce medical resources, numerous recommendations were created. Late 2021, the emergence of the Omicron variant whose transmissibility was identified but whose vaccine sensitivity was still unknown, reactivated debates.

[Events and errors in radiation oncology: Conciliating perspectives to support care].

The term "event" covers a wide range of concrete situations in radiation oncology, from particularly intense radiation-related side effects to the possibility of technical or human error. Although quality procedures are an integral part of radiotherapy oncology department operations ensuring the analysis and prevention of such events, their occurrence during radiation treatment still has a significant impact on patients and their experience of the treatment process, as well as on health professionals. These practical, emotional and symbolic impacts are all the greater when the event occurs in the aftermath of an error.

The ethics of induction of labor at 39 weeks in low-risk nulliparas in research and clinical practice.

The "A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management" trial (ARRIVE trial) published in 2018 suggested that induction of labor can be considered a "reasonable option" for low-risk nulliparous women at ≥39 weeks of gestation. The study results led some professional societies to endorse the option for elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation in low-risk nulliparas, and this has begun to change obstetrical practice. The ARRIVE trial provided valuable information supporting the benefits of induction of labor; however, the trial is insufficient to serve as the primary justification for widespread elective induction of labor at 39 weeks of gestation in low-risk nulliparas because of concerns about external validity.