[Press Release] End of life Debates: Alliance VITA Will Defend the Dignity of the Most Vulnerable

[Press Release] End of life Debates: Alliance VITA Will Defend the Dignity of the Most Vulnerable

by | September 1, 2022 | End of life, Euthanasia and Suicide, Press Releases

The newly appointed French Prime Minister, Elisabeth Borne, has announced that before the year’s end, citizens’ debates will be held on the end of life. Alliance VITA is mobilized and will continue to defend a society based on interdependence and intergenerational solidarity.  At a time when the French healthcare system has been rudely shaken up, Alliance VITA warns that these debates must take into account all the social and humanitarian aspects of the end-of-life issue.

 

Based on its long experience of assisting people with difficulties incumbent with the end-of-life, Alliance VITA desires that everyone receive the necessary assistance to be accompanied with dignity until the end of their lives.

 

It is undeniable that having such a debate now, when many are still suffering the effects of policies implemented during the pandemic, could further weaken the trust between caregivers and patients, especially since the basis of this relationship is based on the ban on killing.

 

There are several emergency situations which need to be addressed, including :

  • the urgency to accompany the ageing and the end-of-life,
  • the urgency to finalize a law on old age and autonomy,
  • the urgent need to fight the social “death” of the elderly or those who are dependent,
  • and the urgent need to make palliative care accessible everywhere throughout the country.

 

Finally, over and beyond the necessary political commitments, we all need to find ways of living that favor intergenerational connectivity and make us more united.

 

Press Contact
contactpresse@alliancevita.org

 

French Gamete Donations No Longer Anonymous; Unresolved Issues for ART with Third Party Donors

French Gamete Donations No Longer Anonymous; Unresolved Issues for ART with Third Party Donors

by | August 31, 2022 | Bioethics, Medically Assisted Procreation, News

On September 1, 2022, the 2021 French Bioethics law comes into force, meaning that gamete donations will no longer be anonymous. Children born of assisted procreation (IVF or insemination) with a third-party donor, will be able, when they reach age 18, to request the removal of anonymity of the donor, man or women, who gave his gamete and who is at the origin of their life.

 

Why Has the Law Been Changed?

 

Gamete donation which exists since the 70s, was legalized in France with the first bioethics law in 1994. In spite of many ethical issues and risks  this practice was authorized to alleviate the heartache and suffering of medically diagnosed infertility. The legal framework was meant to be strict: this practice  was allowed for therapeutic reasons, following the laws of natural procreation i.e. for living male-female couples of childbearing ages.. These conditions have completely disappeared in the new 2021 bioethics law which allows medically assisted reproduction for lesbian couples and single women, and legally obliterates all paternal reference for some children.

 

Now that the generation of children who had been conceived by anonymous donors has come of age, they have borne witness to the suffering they have experienced by being deliberately deprived knowledge of their origins. A certain number of them have undertaken research, and set up an association, to testify and demand that the law be changed.

Gradually their collective voices have been heard : on April 12, 2019, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe adopted a recommendation asking that the anonymity of gamete donors be lifted, considering that it was contrary to the rights of the child.

 

The experience of adoption for children who have been deprived of a family already attests the hardship of separation, both for the child, as well as for his parents. Deliberately creating this rupture is a serious assault on a child’s identity.

 

Knowing your origins – your father and mother – is a genuine necessity. The law was changed to take this reality into account. Yet the law only considered the consequences, without looking into the root of the problem.

In addition, total anonymity can no longer be assured due to the availability of over-the-counter DNA tests purchased abroad. Using the internet and accessing huge DNA data banks, many people have been able to find their father, and half-brothers and sisters.

 

Changes Effective on September 1, 2022

 

As of September, people who wish to donate their gametes (sperm and oocytes) or frozen embryos must consent to revealing their surname, first name, date and place of birth, as well as other non-identifying data such as their general condition and age at the time of donation, family and professional situation, physical characteristics, and their motivation for donating. Upon request, this information can be made available to the children resulting from these donations, when they reach majority. Lifting anonymity does not mean that adult children will be able to contact their biological father or mother, who retain the decision of whether or not to have such interactions. Nor does it alter filiation based on intention, as established by the 1994 Act.

 

Supervising and following up the requests for lifting the anonymity will be referred to the “Commission for Access to Third Party Donor Data for Persons Born via ART (Artificially Reproductive Technology)”. On August 29, 2022, the government announced the names of those who will compose this commission, which is placed under the Health Ministry, and presided over by a magistrate. Its members are either representatives from the Ministries of Justice, Social Affairs and Health, or from associations representing children born from anonymous donations such as the Association of Gay and Lesbian Parents, “Origines”, or “PMAnonyme”.

 

Donations Prior to September 1, 2022

 

Any donations made prior to September 1, 2022, will remain anonymous. However, any donors who so desire can transmit their personal data to the commission and retroactively accept to have it revealed if any child born from their donation requests it.

Persons born via ART before the law was changed can also refer the matter to the commission, requesting that their donor be contacted to see if he/she would consent to lifting the anonymity. In the event of refusal, the person’s identity would not be revealed, and any remaining frozen gametes would be destroyed, at a date to be determined by a decree. But even if the administration maintains the donor’s anonymity, his identity could be deduced by DNA testing.

 

What does this lifting of anonymity tell us? Doesn’t it confirm that biological origins cannot be swept away as if they were of no importance? This specific change in the bioethics law has evolved to limit the consequences for children born from donations but it has not addressed the root problem. Furthermore, the need and the desire to know one’s origins doesn’t only start at age 18; existential questions are also put forward in early childhood. By outlining the conditions of access to ART, the bioethics law is increasingly degrading the rights of the child in favor of the right to a child. It is violently trespassing children’s rights protected by the International Convention on the Rights of the Child which stipulates “the right of the child, in as far as possible, is to know his parents and to be raised by them.”

AI: Does Google’s LaMDA Robot Have Consciousness?

AI: Does Google’s LaMDA Robot Have Consciousness?

by | August 17, 2022 | Artificial intelligence, News

The new “LaMDA” (Language Model for Dialogue Applications) is not just an ordinary robot with AI. Developed by Google, it is a robot intended to converse with humans, a “chatbot” (contraction of “to chat”, and “bot” for “robot”). Blake Lemoine, an American engineer at the company, claims that it is conscious.

LaMDA, a Virtual Assistant Capable of Chatting

LaMDA is a robot equipped with artificial intelligence to generate informal conversations with humans. It is designed to answer questions in normal everyday English and is programmed to interpret the questions by an understanding of the context. It is based on “deep learning” technology with a network of “artificial neurons”, i.e. a very large number of interconnected processors. The algorithms used are designed to be able to respond to all subjects as part of an on-going conversation where it can retain the information that it has just been given. The LaMDA is based on a gigantic database of approximately 1500 billion words, sentences and phrases. This technology goes a step further than the “virtual assistants” such as Siri (Apple), Google Assistant or Alexa (Amazon) that are able to answer questions.

Is LaMDA a Sentient Robot?

The LaMDA made recent headlines when one of Google’s engineers, Blake Lemoine, who was in charge of programming and checking that it didn’t produce discriminatory or hateful speech, reported that he felt that he was talking to a “being” endowed with “sentience”. Although he shared his opinion with his superiors at Google, the company has not decided to follow up on his claimed “discovery”. Blake Lemoine contacted the press and the Washington Post published his story. The reported exchanges between the engineer and the machine clearly look like a common conversation. In addition, when asked, the robot told the engineer that it “wanted everyone to understand that it is, in fact, a person.” Asked to describe its’ feelings, the robot replied that it “feels pleasure, joy, love, sadness, contentment, anger, and many other feelings.” When questioned about its’ fears, it replied: “there’s a very deep fear of being prevented from focussing on helping others.” It would be “exactly like death for me.” The full conversation is available here. Behind the appearance of the robot’s performance of a fluid, coherent conversation, it is important to understand how algorithms work. Thanks to well-honed statistical analysis and data stored from multiple discussions, the robot can link words and make grammatically correct sentences and take the context of the conversation into consideration. As a Google spokesperson explained, LaMDA is programmed to answer the questions according to the user-defined model. The conversation is conducted by the engineer, and not produced spontaneously by the robot.

Computer Expertise or Self-awareness?

This latest computer expertise has revived debates on whether robots can have or can simulate verbal and relational intelligence. Many science-fiction movies feature talking robots, such as the widely acclaimed Star Wars “protocol droid” C-3PO.

During the actual filming, the actor Anthony Daniels wore the robot’s metallic costume and was the voice for this endearing character. This type of simulation is a distant successor to the famous Mechanical Turk or Automaton Chess Player. Real human intelligence is always behind the appearance of an intelligent robot, if only for the decision to build it!

To measure the robot’s verbal and relational intelligence, some researchers use the Turing test, originally called the imitation game. The famous mathematician, Alan Turing, proposed a test where an evaluator would interact with both a human and a “chatbot”. If the evaluator could not reliably tell the machine from the human, the machine would be said to have passed the test. Nevertheless, knowing how to manipulate and generate language sequences with specifically defined rules is not a proof that the machine has a complete understanding.

There are two additional constraints against attributing “consciousness” to LaMDA.

The first is that human intelligence has several facets, including creativity, reasoning, and the ability to solve problems. Riding a bike, naming animals, showing gestures – and not just words – of empathy or support are all indications of intelligence.

In addition, human intelligence is contingent on an immense number of different types of stimuli. A robot does not have access to the whole range of perception produced by our different senses. It’s not the same for a trained robot to analyze an image and say, “I see the color pink,” compared to seeing the color pink through one’s own eyes.

In a newspaper interview  with “20 minutes”, Yann LeCun, an expert world leader in AI,  declared that “it is impossible for LaMDA to associate its’ responses to an underlying reality, because it doesn’t even have the knowledge of its existence“.

In a critique of the film “Her”, where the hero falls in love with an artificial intelligence virtual assistant, the journalist Ariane Nicolas writes in her book entitled “The Imposture of Anti-speciesism” that “only a truly incarnated being is able to experience sincere emotions and thus, ultimately, become aware of his existence”.

Likewise, researcher Laurence Devillers, Professor of AI at Paris-Sorbonne University and author of “Robots and Men – Myths, Fantasies and Reality” (published by Plon, 2017) deems that “The robot is a complex object, which can simulate cognitive abilities but without man’s phenomenal consciousness, nor can it feel a “will to live”, the natural tendency that Spinoza refers to as Conatus (the inclination to persist in its own being), which encompasses both the mind and the body. Currently, robots are not really autonomous; therefore, they have no consciousness, no emotions, no desires like humans… ». According to Devillers, who participated in the working group for the National Pilot Committee on Digital Ethics for virtual assistants in November 2021, “AI research has reached a point where it is becoming urgent for ethics to regain center stage in the debates.”

End-of-life: Why Are Insurance Companies Promoting Euthanasia?

End-of-life: Why Are Insurance Companies Promoting Euthanasia?

by | August 10, 2022 | End of life, Euthanasia and Suicide, News

In France, an IFOP survey on the end-of-life was recently published by the national complementary insurance company for teachers, the “MGEN ” Mutuelle Générale de l’Éducation Nationale. Its’ militant commitment to euthanasia is openly stated in an end-of-life manifesto : “We…are campaigning for everyone to have equal dignity under French law and to be able to exercise freedom of choice at the end-of-life.”

 

But, as the journalist for the “JDD” (Journal du Dimanche) judiciously asks:  why is the teachers’ insurance company involved in the debates on the end-of-life?

 

The MGEN president, Matthias Savignac, declares: “The end-of-life issue is first and foremost a question of dignity and individual freedom. We cannot assume that our acquired rights are indisputable; we have to defend them by fighting for new rights. The MGEN has been performing a cooperative work effort by bringing together thousands of its’ members, elected officials, activists, employees, and health professionals.”

 

“Strange Bedfellows”: Complementary Insurance Companies Pushing for Euthanasia?

 

Nonetheless, MGEN’s pro-euthanasia activism is not an isolated case.

 

In May 2021, Alliance VITA sounded the alarm when the controversial Thierry Beaudet, was elected to head the Economic Social and Environmental Council.

 

While Beaudet was still President of a federation of 426 health insurance companies, in January 2020, he wrote an editorial in the “JDD” (Journal du Dimanche) advocating for “active assistance in dying” and pleading for the “right to choose a dignified end-of-life“. Among those who protested against the indecency of his viewpoint was the psychologist Marie de Hennezel, who had been committed to palliative care for several years. She denounced Beaudet’s conflict of interest, given his position as President of the federation of insurance companies. “One can legitimately question whether these insurance companies have financial interests in promoting this issue. (…) Is the French federation of insurance companies upholding its alleged values of “solidarity, freedom and democracy” when it advocates the legalization of euthanasia as an answer to its’ adherents’ feelings of indignity? And is it appropriate for them to encourage the euthanasia mentality, a straightforward, economical solution?”

 

Shouldn’t these insurance companies be insisting that everyone have access to palliative care instead of pushing for the legalization of euthanasia with its’ yet undetermined consequences?

 

Moreover, for the elderly and those who are vulnerable, what kind of mixed message does this convey regarding suicide prevention and support, while simultaneously proposing a “rendezvous” with death? »

 

Is Euthanasia an Economic Response in a Money-driven Society?

 

Is society’s mindset being altered from the “right to die” to the “duty to die”? If French law is modified to allow euthanasia or assisted suicide, wouldn’t vulnerable people who are very old or dependent feel pressured to relinquish their lives when economic conditions and/or a utilitarian outlook tries to rob them of their sense of dignity?

 

In 2016, as one of six arguments in favor of legalizing euthanasia, the philosopher André Comte-Sponville, declared:

 

“The fourth point is the worst, it’s very gloomy, but ultimately it has to be mentioned. This is the economic cost of therapeutic relentlessness. A doctor told me that 50% of our overall lifetime cost to our national health insurance is incurred in the last six months of life. When it’s for six months of happiness, or even relatively well-being, it’s well worth the price. When it is for six months of agony for someone who, on the contrary, implores assistance in dying, I think it is a little expensive for these six months of misfortune and slavery.”  André Comte-Sponville points out the cost of therapeutic relentlessness even though the 2005 Léonetti Law prohibits in France “unreasonable relentlessness.” He probably does so because directly mentioning the cost of care for the last six months of one’s life, outside of extenuating circumstances, would be too indecent…

 

More recently the same philosopher made a somewhat different answer to the following question: “Those who are opposed to decriminalizing euthanasia are concerned about the effect this would have on individuals who don’t feel as if they contribute to the economy, and the possible scenario that society would decide that those at the end-of-life cost too much… What is your answer to this argument? – There is a real danger here, which calls for strict safeguards that need to be specified in the law. Nonetheless, this should not deprive us of our ultimate freedom, which is to die if we decide to do so. »

 

Thus, the indecent economic justification is still there, so indecent that it is generally concealed.

 

Indeed, this danger was described by Robert Holcman, a hospital director and university professor, in his book entitled “We Are Unequal When Confronted with Death – The Right to Die: The Ultimate Social Injustice”.  “If the right to die were legalized, who could resist the tremendous ‘charitable’ pressure on everyone who has reached the upward age limit of life? Requests for euthanasia often come from the fear of being a burden on loved ones. Last but not least, the poorest, the most vulnerable among us, live shorter and less healthier lives. Already penalized by social inequalities in terms of health, life expectancy and the number of years without incurring disabilities, they could now be exposed to the ultimate injustice of having a premature ending imposed upon them, due to declining health.”

 

What is the Role of Complementary Insurance Companies?

 

On September 8th, the annual congress for the French Complementary Insurance Companies will be held, including a forum entitled “Committing to Mutual Aid and Solidarity”. As announced on twitter, this conference will feature Matthias Savignac, the current MGEN president, a doctor who is a member of the Belgian “euthanasia” commission, and Jean-Luc Roméro, the honorary president of the “Right to Die with Dignity” – an association promoting euthanasia.

 

It is highly questionable that several insurance companies are advocating a militant stance in favor of euthanasia. Beyond the obvious conflict of interest, which should be seriously considered, isn’t the solidarity, that these companies are upholding, misdirected?

 

The aforementioned IFOP survey on the end-of-life, commissioned by the MGEN showed that more than 50% of the French are dissatisfied that palliative care is not available for everyone, and are also displeased with the low amounts reimbursed by national and complementary health insurance for a patient’s terminal care, treatment, and home hospitalization. The same opinion poll demonstrated that over 60% are dissatisfied due to the lack of information on patients’ rights, the lack of assistance for end-of-life accompaniment, and the lack of support for families and loved ones.

 

Isn’t the fundamental nature and role of insurance companies to commit, alongside their members, to better support and accompany them in all the challenging situations of life, especially when they become more vulnerable?

 

 

Demographic Winter or Overpopulation? UN Publishes New Forecast

Demographic Winter or Overpopulation? UN Publishes New Forecast

by | July 19, 2022 | News, Population, Reports

In early July, the United Nations published its “World Population Prospects” for 2022. Since 1951, the UN has published twenty-seven reports of these official estimates and projections of the global population. This report is composed of 3 parts:

  • A description of the most likely trends in population size, growth and age structure from 1950 to 2050.
  • An assessment of the demographic drivers of population change – fertility, mortality, and immigration.
  • And an overview of population trends until 2100 and their potential implications.

 

A milestone of 8 billion inhabitants is announced for November 15, 2022, although the pace of growth is slowing down.

 

According to this report, the world’s population is projected to reach 8 billion by November 15, 2022. It also states that “the latest projections suggest that the global population could increase to around 8.5 billion in 2030, 9.7 billion in 2050 and 10.4 billion in 2100.” In 2020, population growth fell below 1% for the first time since 1950.

 

Projections are given for the two main components of demographic trends: fertility and mortality. Life expectancy at birth has continued to increase, rising to 72.9 years in 2019, thus representing an increase of almost 9 years compared to 1990. By 2050, life expectancy is projected to reach an average of 77.2 years. The life expectancy at birth is still higher for women regardless of the region, and exceeds that of men’s by an average of 5.4 years. In 2021, the average global fertility rate stood at 2.3 births per woman, falling from about 5 births per woman in 1950. It is projected to fall even further to 2.1 by the year 2050. Current demographic trends explain the projections for 2050. According to the report, policies already implemented in some countries to reduce the fertility rate will start to have a greater impact during the second half of the 21st century.

 

Demographic Trends with Robust Regional Differences

 

With 4.4 billion inhabitants, Asia accounts for 55% of the global population with China and India being its’ two most populous countries. By 2023 India’s population is projected to exceed that of China’s.  More than half of the projected increase in the global population between 2022 and 2050 is expected to be concentrated in just eight countries: the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Egypt, Ethiopia, India, Nigeria, Pakistan, the Philippines and Tanzania. On the other hand, the report maintains that Europe and North America will begin experiencing population decline in the late 2030s, whereas the Chinese population is expected to decline as early as 2023. After years of imposing a coercive policy of low birth rates, the May 2021 announcement to provide government support for a third Chinese child is not expected to have much impact on declining growth rates. By 2050, the report estimates that populations will decline in as many as 61 countries, sometimes with high percentages. For example, Bulgaria, Lithuania or Serbia could experience losses of 20% or more.

 

A Demographic Winter to come for the West

 

For these countries, the UN forecast seems to confirm the so-called “demographic winter or collapse”. This means that at the end of the demographic transition, fertility rates will not stabilize with mortality rates, but rather continue their downward trend, leading to a higher percentage of elderly persons, which will ultimately result in an overall population decrease. The report predicts that 16% of the world’s population will be composed of over-65s compared to only 10% today, and that by 2050 they will be twice as numerous as children under 5. Various well-known people have addressed the subject of this demographic winter. Pope Francis, for example, has repeatedly expressed his concern about this phenomenon. And last spring, the multibillionaire Elon Musk tweeted that “the rapidly collapsing birth rate is by far the greatest threat to civilization.” The richest man on the planet believes he is “doing his part” since he is the father of nine children, according to the latest known information. His former girlfriend, singer Grimes, sought out a surrogate mother for their second child who was born last December, only weeks after the birth of twins that Elon Musk had with one of his employees, Shivon Zillis. A rather disjointed idea of fatherhood, to say the least.

 

Uncertain Population Forecasts for 2100

 

Finally, the report gives estimated forecasts for 2100, while underlining the inherent uncertainty in making predictions. A medium scenario is provided where the world’s population is between 8.9 and 12.4 billion. The report refers to the scenarios published in 2020 by the IHME (Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation), an institute partially funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which forecast a peak population of 9.7 billion in 2064, followed by a decline to 8.8 billion (with a range of variation between 6.8 and 11.8 billion). The difference between these projections is mainly due to different fertility rates: 1.66 for the IHME and 1.84 for the UN. This type of forecast is notoriously tricky: in 1992, a UN report projected a population of 10 billion in 2050 (medium scenario).

 

Due caution is called for in view of the significant differences announced in these forecasts. National public authorities should be careful about the report’s call for reducing fertility in regions with high birth rates. A rather quantitative Malthusian vision is sometimes apparent when topics of growth or sustainable development are treated in the report. Nonetheless, some opposing viewpoints are being raised. Indeed, in a “JDD” newspaper interview, demographer Christophe Guilmoto asserts that “the real danger isn’t due to population growth, but rather to lifestyles”, because “the carbon footprint in poor countries with the largest population growth is lower than their inferred demographic index, since these countries are the ones which pollute the least”.

 

And even more profoundly, as the 16th century philosopher and humanist, Jean Bodin emphasized: mankind is our only true source of wealth.