by NexDev | April 12, 2018 | News
On April 9th, Dr. Sanchez who is in charge of Vincent Lambert at the University Hospital in Reims, France, informed the family members of the decision resulting from the collegial process which had started last September. In his opinion Vincent Lambert’s situation should be qualified as “unreasonable obstinacy”. He said he was in favor of stopping treatment, which means stopping nutrition and hydration, which will lead to his death.
This is a new judicial development in the ongoing family conflict which began 5 years ago. In 2013, Vincent survived the withdrawal of artificial nutrition and hydration, decided by the first collegial procedure with his wife’s consent, but without his parents’ knowledge. When the parents filed an emergency court motion, the judge ordered that nutrition be immediately re-established.
Contrary to what was reported in the media, Vincent Lambert’s condition is not comatose, nor vegetative. Indeed, he is in a pauci-relational state and not at the end of his life. Some family members have been requesting Vincent’s transfer to a specialized unit such as were created in 2002 by the French law Relating to Patients’ Rights, to care for those individuals in a chronic vegetative or pauci-relational state.
Dr. Sanchez warned that nutrition is planned to be stopped within 10 days. The family members will only have this short time to file an appeal with the administrative authorities.
In an open letter to the French President published in “Le Figaro” newspaper on April 11, 2018, Vincent Lambert’s mother asked to be heard urgently by the President to reveal her son’s true condition.
“Like the other 1,700 individuals with the same disability, Vincent should already have been placed in a specialized unit for patients with brain injury. Instead, he was admitted to palliative care, without appropriate treatment, without physiotherapy, which could have allowed him to progress. Several institutions for victims of serious road accidents are ready to care for him. Nevertheless he is still being held in palliative care in a hospital that is unqualified for providing such care. “
Tugdual Derville, Alliance VITA’s General Delegate, author of “The Battle of Euthanasia” and founder of SOS End-of-Life, was interviewed live on April 10, 2018, on the Catholic Television “KTO” on the program “At the Source” regarding this situation:
“First of all, it’s a very complicated situation, with family members with opposing opinions. On one side his wife and nephew, and on the other side Vincent’s parents and some of brothers and sisters. He is in a “pauci-relational” state, meaning that he cannot express himself clearly, and has not made any advance declaration, but he doesn’t receive any special treatment. He needs nutrition, and even that was withdrawn 5 years ago, in 2013 for 31 days. Professor Xavier Ducrocq, a neurologist who accompanies his parents and who knows Vincent well declares that the fact that he survived that episode denotes his vitality. Someone who can survive that demonstrates a life force, maybe even his determination to live.
Vincent Lambert is not at the end of his life, and if the decision is enforced to stop feeding him, it will cause his death. This would be an act of euthanasia, especially since he has no specific treatment, and this would certainly result in his death. We think about the thousands of neuro-vegetative and pauci-relational patients who are in specialized establishments. What Vincent Lambert’s family is requesting is that he could leave the palliative care unit, which is inappropriate for his condition, and be admitted in a center where he could receive the rehabilitative care he has been deprived of for years now. Providing appropriate care for these patients is a critical issue. Because once society no longer considers them worthy to exist, the role and duties of all the others, their relatives, and caregivers who unceasingly devote time themselves are thus being contradicted. “
_________________________
For further information refer to: The judiciary procedures concerning Vincent Lambert
![[Press Release] Euthanasia Disguised as Healthcare in France!](https://www.alliancevita.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/cese_findevie-1080x675-1.jpg)
by NexDev | April 10, 2018 | End of life, Euthanasia and Suicide, Palliative care, Press Releases
As a member of the collective group “Relieve Pain without Killing”, the Alliance VITA association joins them in denouncing the irresponsible conclusion published by the temporary commission of the “CESE” (French Council for the Economy, Society, and Environment) for end-of-life issues, which regards euthanasia as healthcare.
As Alliance VITA’s General Delegate, Tugdual Derville, who founded the SOS End-of-Life service and is the spokesman for “Relieve Suffering without Killing”, sponsored by Philippe Pozzo di Borgo, makes the following statement:
“With this opinion, the “CESE” is seriously undermining the ethics and safety of healthcare practices.
In their attempt to have euthanasia accepted, the “CESE” has invented an extremely dangerous double talk. Administering death to a person is presented as:
- the “last care “,
- or the “ultimate or care”,
- or even a “profound and explicitly lethal sedation”.
We must call things by their rightful name: how can they dare advertise a care or “deep sedation” that is poisonous and exterminates individuals?
It is at the most vulnerable time of our existence, especially at the end-of-life, that nursing practices must be protected from temptations towards euthanasia. The idea is always to relieve pain without ever killing.
The “CESE’s” legitimate praise for palliative care is ruined by this deleterious recommendation that completely distorts the very definition of palliative care.
On the contrary, we want to pay tribute to the courage and pertinence of those “CESE” members who expressed remarkable dissenting opinions. In the Chamber, a discomfort and a total lack of unanimity could be felt. These members wanted to be dissociated from their colleagues and pointed out the danger of a medical practice which would include the administration of death.
In any case, we call upon the French President to protect our healthcare system from being spoilt by opinions in favor of the practice of euthanasia. “
by NexDev | April 5, 2018 | Medically Assisted Procreation
A Canadian Liberal MP, Anthony Housefather, from Trudeau’s government, plans to introduce a bill in May to change federal law to make it legal to pay surrogate mothers, and to buy eggs and sperm. “A woman can decide to become a surrogate mother for a variety of reasons,” says Housefather. “I don’t see the problem if a women decides that it’s an economic opportunity.”
In 2004, Canada ruled on surrogacy, which is now allowed throughout the country, except for Quebec. However, payment remains illegal and is punishable by a maximum prison sentence of 10 years and a fine of up to $ 500,000. Under current law, surrogates can be reimbursed for any pregnancy-related expenses up to 22,000 € (for maternity clothes, etc…). Surrogacy costs are estimated between 60,000 and 100,000 €: including compensating the surrogate mother for the cost of ART treatment (8,000 – 15,000 €), lawyer’s fees, legal advice, insurance, etc.
The Canadian Ministers and Trudeau’s cabinet are divided on the issue of surrogacy. Although some support the idea, there are many voices of opposition, including Employment Minister Patricia Hajdu, a former social worker in Northern Ontario who says, “What I learnt from my experience with vulnerable populations is that there is always a risk, when allowing payment for services, that people in need are likely to provide these services. “ Francoise Baylis, Canada Research Chair in Bioethics and Philosophy, wonders why “we put so much emphasis on what some adults want, while paying very little attention to the standpoint of children who will know that money was spent to have them.” During her research, she has heard testimonials from young people who “feel like objects, a product of commodity because they know they were purchased”. MP Hedy Fry does not agree either. “As a doctor, I am worried. It’s a slippery slope,” she says, pointing out that a pregnancy can always have complications. “It’s not an adequate way to make money.” The women’s rights group also is rebelling against Housefather’s proposed bill. In a press release Diane Guilaut wrote that paying surrogates is “the highest level in human life commodification“, warning that poor women will be exploited in these scenarios.
In Europe, the United Kingdom has also authorized so-called “non-commercial” surrogacy since 1985. No financial transaction is allowed, but the surrogate mother may receive up to 19,000 € to cover expenses incurred during pregnancy. A survey conducted in 2011 and published by the Sunday Telegraph in 2012, revealed that 100 children had been born to surrogate mothers in Britain in 2011. That same year UK clients ordered babies from 1,000 surrogate mothers in India, thus accounting for 50% of the 2,000 surrogate babies born in India.
Caroline Roux, Assistant General Delegate and Director of VITA International speaks out:
“This debate in Canada clearly demonstrates how only a few years after passing the first surrogacy law, which claimed to provide “regulatory guidelines”, the legislative situation is now being challenged to go further. On the one hand the non-commercial aspect is an illusion in view of surrogacy costs and the compensations received by the mother which is a form of payment, and on the other hand, the supply inevitably creates the market as can be observed in Great Britain or with this current Canadian bill. There is simply no way to define an ethical surrogacy. And the transgressions continue non-stop: this should be a strong signal for France, which is currently undergoing bioethical consultations. Whether or not surrogacy is paid for, it is an irreversible and irreparable mistreatment regarding the origin of babies born in this manner, and an exploitation and alienation of women’s body. France has a major role to play in promoting the prohibition of surrogacy both on a European and on a worldwide level, for non-commodification of women’s body and for the respect of a child’s dignity, which cannot be regarded as a commodity to be bought, sold or given away.“
by NexDev | April 4, 2018 | Bioethics
Launched on this past January 18th, the organizers for the French National Consultations on Bioethics gave their first conclusions on the citizen contributions on April 4th. However, the public only has until April 30th to make online comments on the website (etatsgenerauxdelabioéthique.fr.).
According to the National Consultative Ethics Committee (known in French as “CCNE”), 9,700 Internet users have already commented with 24,000 discussion points. The organizers hope to double this number by the end of the month, while simultaneously fearing too many activists’ will respond, especially regarding the most controversial subject: ART. In total, the “CCNE” estimates that 20,000 people will have taken part in approximately 300 regional meetings.
Several events are scheduled for May and June:
- a citizen’s committee of 22 civilians will publish a report on clinical genomics and genetic testing; and on the end-of-life.
- 3 scientific meetings on genomics, embryo research and neuroscience will be held
- the CCNE will submit its conclusions on the citizens’ contributions to the OPCEST on June 4th, and publish its recommendations in June or July on the subjects to be included in the bioethics law and on the work of the group who focused on artificial intelligence and health.
Tugdual Derville, Alliance VITA’s General Delegate, who was officially invited by the CCNE to speak on March 8, comments on the progress report:
“What is especially obvious at this stage is the majority of citizens who are unwilling to change the legislation, whereas those changes had been presented as inexorable. Whether on the official website or in regional public meetings on ethics, the majority of the contributors defend the idea of keeping protective boundaries for those who are most vulnerable. This includes palliative care against the prohibition to kill, protecting children against the idea of a right to have a child, misgivings for experiments on human embryos, and reasonable use of artificial intelligence etc.
Whether the debates were calm or agitated there is more conviction for protecting those who are most vulnerable. This is an encouragement. The President of the Republic cannot ignore this. Nor can he ignore the small contribution from those who are pleading for the same transgressions that we are contesting.
What these National Consultations already demonstrate is that the public demand for these transgressions is very small, and is an ultra-minority population. And that those who are fighting against those transgressions show strong, well-reasoned arguments. We have heard some criticism about the presence of citizens with firm convictions. In our opinion this is a positive sign that despite the organizers’ shortcomings and lack of resources, the process is dynamic and allows citizens to react and freely express their opinions. The President of the Republic, who promised a peaceful debate, cannot ignore this.
In the coming days we’ll be taking initiatives to shed light on this major debate, prior to its legislative stage. “
by NexDev | March 30, 2018 | Medically Assisted Procreation
On March 28th, as part of the French National Consultations on Bioethics, a meeting was held at Saint-Louis Hospital by the Île-de-France “Ethical Forum” for counter-expertise assessments. Nine proposals were chosen, including that of Blanche Streb, Alliance Vita’s Director of Training and Research, who spoke on issues related to artificial reproduction.
Full transcript of Blanche Streb’s speech:
“Thank you Mr. Emmanuel Hirsch and your staff for organizing this discussion.
I would like to discuss some thoughts on artificial reproduction with you, and how far it should go. The ethical issues are much more considerable than the injustice, which is indeed a very serious issue, of legalizing the making of babies who would be deliberately deprived of a father.
This evening I suggest we take “one step ahead”.
Indeed, this goes much further, leading to a radical change. Where are we headed if reproduction is no longer restricted to male-female couples, infertile or sterile, and of childbearing age? Isn’t it a paradigm shift, a profound change for humanity regarding the way children are manufactured?
Shouldn’t we agree on limits to be defined?
To clarify, I would like to briefly mention some topics mentioned by the National Consultative Ethics Committee (hereafter referred to as: “CCNE”), on the French Consultations for Bioethics website. The Parliamentary Office for the Evaluation of Scientific and Technological Choices (hereafter referred to as “OPECST”) also made recommendations on these topics.
Therefore, it is possible to include them in the upcoming legislation, since researches are currently underway, including here in France.
- 3-Parent IVF (cited by “CCNE and “OPECST”): This technique has been authorized in England. And babies have already been born in Mexico and Ukraine. Using gametes from 3 people: one man and two women, it results in a genetically modified embryo. The aim was to avoid transmission of a hereditary mitochondrial disease by the mother.
This technique seems to target the reproductive market, particularly for “rejuvenated” oocytes. Babies have already been born using this technique, in Ukraine for instance, where mitochondrial pathology was not a problem.
- Human embryos used as laboratory material and their DNA modified
This topic was selected by the CCNE to be discussed: “Should we authorize scientific research leading to transgenic or chimerical embryos? What about the use of molecular scissors (CRISPR/Cas9) in embryo research? “
“OPECST” has made recommendations in favor of this research and suggests modifying the regulations (in particular the Oviedo Convention) to end the prohibition for creating genetically modified embryos, and then examine the possibility of making babies using these methods.
Applying this technique to human embryos would be the fastest and most direct way to manufacturing customized babies.
Artificial gametes can be obtained in different ways: by “breaking through the time wall” of an embryonic cell that is programmed to become a gamete, or by “going back in time” with an adult cell (such as a skin cell).
- Continually trying to produce a “perfect baby”?
By increasing genetic screening prior to conception or expanding the recourse to screening embryos (doing more pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PIGD) testing / continually adding sorting criteria: pathologies, predisposition, and esthetics).
What are the scientific, ethical and security issues?
This brings up questions. Biotechnological changes are leading us towards 2 contradictory and perilous directions: that of sorting embryos for the perfect baby, and that of manufacturing a baby at all costs, even to the point of putting his health at risk.
The discussion points that I have just mentioned bring up a new concept of human reproduction: customized and by special order.
These techniques don’t even cure anyone most of the time; but they do create someone. They use ART to conceive potentially non-viable or sick embryos and then need the technique to “fix” them. There is absolutely no guarantee of efficiency; and still less of safety. Nonetheless, some researchers are conducting or already planning human clinical trials, or rather, clinical experiments using humans. It is especially worrisome to imagine children being manufactured under these circumstances: ignoring the precautionary principle, these techniques are using babies as guinea pigs. These modifications can be congenitally transferred thus having a hereditary impact on future generations.
What would this radical change implicate?
- Endorsing the right to have a child
- Subjugating medicine to serve individual aspirations
- France would gradually shift to reproductive business
- One step further towards classifying and sorting out human beings and manufacturing customized babies. Taking one step further towards eugenics which is insidiously and increasingly creeping into our society. Because we are asking technology to judge which lives are worth living or no worth living.
Basically, isn’t this radical change a way of subjecting life to a biotechnological domination? Is this what we want for our country and our future generations?
What do I recommend ?
- That France should resist to the globalized reproductive market, to more sorting of embryos, to more eugenics.
- That France should continue to be a model of resistance, thanks to its bioethical laws, its vision of humanity, its tradition of human rights, its laws safeguarding the principles of inviolability, inalienability and non-ownership of the human body. Inviolability of the human body to protect against the others, inalienability to protect against oneself; and non-ownership, to protect against the power and pressure of money to allow free gifts. This last principle claims that the body, its organs, or its products cannot be sold, in order to protect individuals against themselves from agreeing under the pressure of money or desperate need of it.
- France should recall that laws are not made for science, but for protecting individuals, and that bioethics should not be ruled by technological advances.
Conclusion:
During these National Consultations on Bioethics we are asked: “What kind of world do we want for the future? In response, two other questions can help clarify the debates.
- does technological progress always go with a progress for humanity?
- on what grounds can a desire become a right?
Indeed, what kind of society are we developing if we no longer protect the weakest, the most vulnerable?
Don’t people on earth deserve better than knowing that their right to existence is based on corresponding to certain criteria? ”
