Cultural differences may indeed influence how doctors perceive ethical difficulties. The type of help needed, however, did not vary markedly. The general structure of ethics support services would not have to be radically altered to suit cultural variations among the surveyed countries.

Bedside rationing is prevalent in all surveyed European countries and varies with physician attitudes and resource availability. The prevalence of physician bedside rationing, which presents physicians with difficult moral dilemmas, highlights the importance of discussions regarding how to ration care in the most ethically justifiable manner.

Summary Italian guidelines on living donation demand that we ascertain the donor’s free and informed consent. Assessments to do so have to be conducted by an independent ‘third party’ who has nothing to do with the medical team treating the recipient. From February 2002 to December 2006, the Veneto Regional Authority’s Third Party Commission evaluated 201 living liver and kidney donors. A sample of these were contacted after their surgery to assess their living donation experience and quality of life (QoL); 81 were eligible for the assessment and 69 (85.2%) responded. All donors involved in the study completed an anonymous document that included the SF‐36 and a questionnaire on their donation experience. The majority (96%) of the sample expressed a positive global opinion of the experience. We concluded that the donation had positive effects on their QoL and that family support had a fundamental influence on their general well‐being, and their psychic balance in particular. Some crucial issues emerged, however, i.e. 11% of donors judged the information received before the operation inadequate, 17% reported a subjective perception of bodily changes after the operation and 14% were concerned about their current health: these findings emphasize the importance of informing potential donors thoroughly before they submit to surgery.

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.

BackgroundIn response to limited resources, health care systems have adopted diverse cost-containment strategies and give priority to differing types of interventions. The perception of physicians, who witness the effects of these strategies, may provide useful insights regarding the impact of system-wide priority setting on access to care.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey to ascertain generalist physicians' perspectives on resources allocation and its consequences in Norway, Switzerland, Italy and the UK.ResultsSurvey respondents (N = 656, response rate 43%) ranged in age from 28–82, and averaged 25 years in practice. Most respondents (87.7%) perceived some resources as scarce, with the most restrictive being: access to nursing home, mental health services, referral to a specialist, and rehabilitation for stroke. Respondents attributed adverse outcomes to scarcity, and some respondents had encountered severe adverse events such as death or permanent disability. Despite universal coverage, 45.6% of respondents reported instances of underinsurance. Most respondents (78.7%) also reported some patient groups as more likely than others to be denied beneficial care on the basis of cost. Almost all respondents (97.3%) found at least one cost-containment policy acceptable. The types of policies preferred suggest that respondents are willing to participate in cost-containment, and do not want to be guided by administrative rules (11.2%) or restrictions on hospital beds (10.7%).ConclusionPhysician reports can provide an indication of how organizational factors may affect availability and equity of health care services. Physicians are willing to participate in cost-containment decisions, rather than be guided by administrative rules. Tools should be developed to enable physicians, who are in a unique position to observe unequal access or discrimination in their health care environment, to address these issues in a more targeted way.