by NexDev | January 20, 2017 | Bioethics, Medically Assisted Procreation
In Kiev, Ukraine, another baby has been born after in-vitro fertilization via the highly controversial “3-parent IVF” technique.
This technique creates an embryo from a spermatozoid and two egg cells, from 2 different women. By “pronuclear transfer” the nucleus (genetic material) from the biological mother’s egg is integrated into the second younger woman’s egg, from which the genetic material has previously been removed. The result is a fertilized ovocyte from one man and 2 women, with the genetic characteristics of the two parents but also the mitochondrial DNA from the female donor. Thus, the embryo manufactured using this technique has 3 different genetic origins.
According to the hospital in Ukraine, the birth occurred on January 5. The parents requested this technique due to infertility.
Although initially developed to avoid transmitting serious mitochondrial disease, 3-parent IVF is now being used in absence of these pathologies as in this case in Ukraine, simply for the use of younger egg cells to overcome infertility problems.
Alliance VITA alerts citizens on major bioethical issues:
“This is a new and serious bioethical abuse. There is no evidence that this experimental technique is absolutely safe; in fact it is quite the opposite. The newborn child is used as “guinea pig” with many unknowns for his health. It is completely irresponsible to take such risks for a child and his family by “tinkering” to produce a genetically modified embryo.
Concerning human embryos, the same ethical questions are at issue here as for the CRISP-Cas9 genetic modification technique. The first baby was born in Mexico using this technique outside of any legal or regulatory guidelines, which was an unprecedented ethical transgression. This new case represents a serious and particularly dangerous form of recklessness. The international community should rise up to massively condemn such an infringement on Human Rights.”
Our article for further information on this subject: “the Hidden Face of 3-parent IVF”
>> Refer to our Expert Notes for further information on this technique and the ethical issues it raises.
Alliance VITA has launched a national and international warning to alert the international community of the dangerous abuses associated with the genetic modification of human embryos, Stop GM Babies.
by NexDev | January 20, 2017 | Uncategorised
On January 17, 2017 the French High Council for Equality between men and women (HCE) published a report on the measures taken in the past 3 years to facilitate access to abortion. Out of the 35 recommendations made by the HCE at the end of 2013, the government has implemented more than two thirds.
Nevertheless the HCE considers that abortion cannot be “a full-blown right” as long as doctors can recourse to a special conscience clause for abortion. In the report this is stated as follows:
« Remove the conscience clause which is explicitly stated in article L.2212-8 of the Public Health Code as follows: « A doctor can never be forced to do a voluntary interruption of pregnancy” as well as for the other health professionals mentioned in the same article. The recourse to “conscience clause” is already accepted in a general manner for all health care workers for all medical procedures.”
In Article L2212-8 the conscience clause appears in the legislative part of the Public Health Code, which contains the laws voted by the Parliament.
The second text, which the HCE regards as another conscience clause, would be, for doctors for instance, the one in Article R.4127-47, which states:
“Regardless of the circumstances, the continuity of patient care must be assured. Barring emergencies or cases where he would be failing to do his altruistic duty, a doctor has the right to refuse care for personal or professional reasons. If he refuses to fulfill his mission, he must notify the patient and transfer to the physician indicated by the patient, the appropriate information for continuing the patient’s care.”
Article R.4127-47 is included in the doctors “Code of Ethics”, the set of rights and obligations for their profession. They are included in the legislative part of the Public Health Code, which contains the decrees and ministerial rulings published by the government.
Therefore, according to the HCE, there are “two conscience clauses », one specifically for abortion, and another one of a more general nature. And both clauses would have the same scope and concern all healthcare personnel. Conclusion, there is one clause too many (that of Public Health Code Art. L2212-8), which must be removed so as not to “stigmatize” abortion compared to other medical procedures.
This argument is deceitful for at least 4 different reasons.
1° The general clause existed prior to the 1975 abortion law. If it was deemed judicious by the legislature to introduce a specific clause when voting this law, it was precisely because doctors needed an increased protection due to the seriousness of abortion. The risk of taking an innocent life is not the same as the risk of refusing to care for a patient, or refusing to prescribe a particular medical treatment.
2° The general clause for doctors has more restrictive coverage. It begins with the following principle: “Regardless of the circumstances, the continuity of patient care must be ensured.” This principle limits a doctor’s discretionary authority in at least two cases mentioned in the text, “cases of emergency and cases where he would be failing to altruistic his duty”. In fact this legal framework is more restrictive and binding for the doctor than the solemn statement whereby “a doctor can never be forced to do a voluntary interruption of pregnancy.”
3° The general clause is by nature regulatory and not legislative. This is certainly a major difference. A law is a much stronger guarantee of liberty than a ministerial decree. A law can only be changed by another law discussed in Parliament, with debates, amendments, votes, possibly liable to censure by the Constitutional Council, etc. A decree can be modified overnight by the government without taking heed of public opinion or elected officials. If the conscience clause is removed from Art. L2212-8 of the Public Health Code, which is legislative, only Art. R.4127-47, which is regulatory and therefore less defensive, will remain.
4° The general clause does not apply to all healthcare personnel. It is true that midwives do have a general clause similar to that for doctors (Public Health Code Art. R.4127-328) as do nurses since last November (Art. R.4312-12 of the same code). Nevertheless these are still general clauses that are regulatory in nature, thus the same restrictions and conditions apply as those for doctors (see analysis above in N° 2 and N°3). Furthermore, there are additional professionals who may be called upon to be directly or indirectly involved in an abortion, such as nurse’s aides. However the specific clause for abortion clearly states that “No midwife, nurse, nor any medical auxiliary personnel regardless of their position, can be forced to participate in abortions”.
HCE’s request to remove the specific conscience clause for abortion is inadmissible, because it is based on an inaccurate analysis of the current legislation. It is based more on an ideological approach than a practical necessity: there is no real problem to abort due to an exaggerated recourse to freedom of conscience.
In fact, not only should this conscience clause not be removed but it should, on the contrary, be reinforced. Many cases of discrimination have been observed, during medical training or employment interviews, at the expense of young people who do not wish to perform abortions. Furthermore, one profession is not covered by this clause, although involved in medically-induced abortions: pharmacists. In fact, pharmacists may be forced to directly participate in abortions, and required to provide products for medical abortions to be performed by doctors or midwives. It is paradoxical that dentists and orthopedists are covered by this conscience clause as medical auxiliary personnel, but not pharmacists.
There are only three conscience clauses for healthcare personnel: one for abortion, one for sterilization (Public Health Code Art. L2123-1) and one for human embryo research (Art. L2151-7-1 of the same code). In every instance, these are serious irreversible procedures affecting the lives of human beings, those already conceived, or else the body’s integrity by removing the capacity to procreate. For these reasons it is completely legitimate to protect the freedom of conscience of those who refuse to perform such procedures.
Freedom of conscience is an invaluable right, protected by the French Constitution and major international texts. Trying to contest this for abortion cases would weaken this very premise and open the door more easily to further attacks.
by NexDev | January 20, 2017 | Fertility and pregnancy
The trend reversal observed for demographics in 2015 continued in 2016, tallying even lower birth rates in 2016 (with only 785,000 births, meaning a decrease by 14,000). The average fertility rate continues to drop to 1.93 children per woman (compared to 1.96 in 2015, and 2 in 2014). France is thus below the symbolic ratio of 2 children per woman. For the moment, France still holds the European track record in number of births, but for how much longer?
What accounts for this decrease?
Besides a slight decrease in the number of child-bearing women these past few years (last generation of “baby-boomers”) as well as the current economic crisis, according to an IFOP survey requested by the “Manif pour tous” (“March for All”); “the government’s family policies in these past years have led couples to either renounce or postpone having a child.”
The good news in these 2016 demographic results is a lower number of deaths, with 587,000 deaths compared with 600,000 in 2015, which were attributed to the heat wave and a deadly flu epidemic.
The natural balance of the population (namely, the difference between the number of births and the number of deaths) reaches 198,000 individuals, the lowest balance reported in 40 years.
In 2015 the average life expectancy had decreased, but it is now on the increase, and the difference between the sexes has diminished. The good news for men is that the average difference between men and women decreased from 7.9 years in 2015 to 6.1 years in 2016. But this increase in life expectancy is also the indication of an ageing population. The youth now represent less than ¼ of the French population, whereas 1 out of 5 individuals is over age 65. In addition, France is the European country with the most centenarians.
The French National Institute for Statistics and Economic Studies (INSEE) is not alarmed by these demographic results, even if France, as other European countries, is still below the generational renewal rate of 2.1. Today France has approximately 67 million inhabitants, and is the second most-populated European country after Germany.
by NexDev | January 20, 2017 | Medically Assisted Procreation
The European Court for Human Rights (ECHR) has again condemned France in the case of Laborie vs. France, for having refused registering civil status documents for birth certificates of twins born in Ukraine by surrogacy.
As in four prior similar cases in 2014 and 2016, the ECHR’s verdict was not based on a violation of family life, but rather a violation of rights with respect to the twin’s private life.
In its ruling, the ECHR mentioned having taken note of the French Court of Cassation’s reversal, following its decision in the Mennesson-Labassée case, which allowed establishing a filial relationship with the biological father by recognizing paternity.
As previously emphasized after the first decision in the Mennesson Case, Alliance VITA declared: “These decisions could jeopardize French law, which prohibits surrogacy and could undermine the necessary dissuasion of procreative tourism. This constitutes a one-sided and paradoxical decision for the child in only recognizing the paternal biological relationship whereas artificial procreation totally destroys the maternal biological bond. It’s the very premise of this practice which should be challenged.”
Regarding surrogacy cases, another anxiously awaited verdict is due to be rendered on Tuesday January 24, on the Paradiso case, where the Italian government appealed the decision. The case involves the Italian Social services and a nine-month-old child born in Russia to a surrogate mother and sold to a couple by contract. It was subsequently proved that the couple had no biological connection with the child.
![[Press release] Abortion: Why is the High Council for Equality unaware of the pressure on women to abort?](https://www.alliancevita.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/HCE-1.png)
by NexDev | January 17, 2017 | Abortion, Press Releases
Alliance VITA has learned according to the latest report published by the French High Council for Equality between men and women (HEC) that the government is now recommending even easier access to abortion with absolutely no proposition whatsoever to help women avoid abortion.
Alliance VITA denounces this one-track mind set emanating from these recommendations which backfire against women by forbidding any freedom of expression on abortion. It is especially significant when the HEC recommends eliminating all conscience clauses for all healthcare staff, thus showing an ideological posture The council is also in favor of the new law for criminalizing numerical obstruction to abortion, a law which is targeted towards those who refuse to accept abortion as being a trivial act.
Caroline Roux, Alliance VITA’s coordinator for listening services crisis center declares:
« It is time to challenge the stereotypes and accept the reality of what women experience. Shall we go on with those debates which describe abortion as the foundation for equality between women and men? Do we need to recall that abortion is often imposed on reluctant women who abort against their will, whereas men never live through this experience? Furthermore we have noticed, when listening to women who ask themselves whether or not to continue their pregnancy, that it is most often the man who pressures a woman into having an abortion. Abortion is therefore a genuine violence against women who are confronted with an unexpected pregnancy; nonetheless the HCE is entirely silent concerning this violence. Promoting true equality would be to assist women in avoiding abortion; such an act is never undertaken in a light-hearted manner. There should be a genuine abortion prevention policy via an unbiased information offering women an alternative to abortion if they so wish. It is also crucial to include men in the focus on abortion prevention to clarify the growing misunderstandings between men and women on abortion issues.”
Tugdual Derville, Alliance VITA’s general delegate asks:
“Isn’t it ironic that the HCE, who purports to defend attacks on women, is now rejoicing in deleting distress factors and shortening the reflection period for women before having recourse to abortion? Via our listening services, we have observed that these latter two factors constituted the ultimate protection for women enduring pressure to abort. HCE’s support of the government project to implement the new legislation on numerical obstruction to abortion, in a legal process which is can be compared to delivery by forceps, will result in even more women being pressured into abortions. Why are those proposing alternatives for women faced with unexpected pregnancy being intimidated? In this matter, the patrolling thought police are denying reality: in every abortion the destiny of another human being is at stake. It will never be innocuous, neither for women, nor for society. This is why the objective for an abortion prevention policy should focus on helping women avoid abortion.”
Alliance VITA continues to plead for a genuine abortion prevention policy.
Last November the association launched an unprecedented information campaign to reduce abortion, focused on men’s opinion and clarifying misunderstandings on sexuality, contraception and pregnancy. These misconceptions account for many abortions that women reluctantly undergo, and which could be avoided:
http://levonslesmalentendus.alliancevita.org/
Whereas a vote will soon be held on “numerical obstruction to abortion” which the government forced through by declaring a state of legislative emergency without any real prior discussion, Alliance VITA advocates the March for Life to be held Sunday January 22 in Paris.
