by NexDev | October 7, 2015 | End of life, Laws, surveys, protagonists, News, Palliative care
The End of Life Bill which was submitted by MP’s Jean Leonetti and Alain Claeys, was adopted by the National Assembly at the 2nd reading Tuesday, October 6th.
Being that no political groups had requested a public ballot (by which one could specifically know who is in favor, against or abstains), the vote was conducted by a show of hands in the sparsely filled Palais Bourbon.
394 amendments were stabled for discussion in public sessions.
Almost all were refused by the rapporteurs Claeys and Leonetti as well as by the Government represented by Marisol Touraine. The few amendments that were accepted only introduced slight modifications on two points:
- The first one concerns, in article 8, the writing of the advanced directives, with a more flexible wording which specifies that the model provided may not necessarily be “unique”.
- The second one concerns, in article 9, the person of confidence: on the one hand, it will henceforth be possible to designate a second person of confidence, “a substitute” (in the case where the named person is unable to express the patient’s will); and on the other hand, the naming document in writing must be co-signed by the designated person.
Alliance VITA supports the call to action for « Relieve Suffering without Killing” in which the association participates, and which sounds the alarm on the ambiguities of this text notably on the principle of “profound and continuous sedation until death” presented as a solution to “dying badly” in France.
Two days before the law was to be examined at the National Assembly the delegations of the movement rallied (see video and photos) in front of the 13 regional prefectures in France on Saturday October 3rd, to call for urgent implementation of a development plan for palliative care, which has been at a standstill since 2012.
by NexDev | October 6, 2015 | Bioethics, Human embryo research
In this video, Tugdual Derville describes the hopes and challenges raised by a new technique: the CRISPR-Cas9 method. Thanks to this technique it is now possible to replace, snip out or insert a gene to a cell’s DNA. It is a rather simple inexpensive genetic manipulation, applicable to all cell types, whether they are vegetable, animal or human. It is a very promising technique for genetic therapy, and could be an extraordinary leap ahead in the history of medicine. These techniques are progressing at a staggering pace.
But as is often the case with important discoveries, future scenarios could hold the best as well as the worst. And thus, we are faced with a red boundary line not to be crossed : this technique could be applied to the human embryo genome and to germ cells.
This rapid genetic progress now opens before us the path of creating « custom-made babies », with real risks of eugenic and scientific abuses.
A Chinese scientific team has already performed this major ethical transgression in their laboratory and a British researcher has also just requested authorization for it.
The modification of a human embryo has implications for our descendants, and thus a large part of Humanity. Therefore this issue concerns all of us and is not only a question reserved for scientists.
We had actively supported the call for a moratorium called for by researchers last April.
Today a UNESCO panel composed of scientists, philosophers, jurists and ministers has also called for a temporary halt to genetic “engineering” on human germ cell lines, recommending a wide-reaching public debate on genetic modification to human DNA.
Tugdual Derville resounds this alert « It is a complete revolution in our bioethical thinking. I call for large spread debates on this subject and will be attentive in the forthcoming months to participate in these major issues.”
by NexDev | October 6, 2015 | Bioethics, News
The legislation concerning post-mortem organ donation, the subject of a very controversial amendment during Parliament’s discussion on the Health bill, was finally not modified in the version that the Senate has just ratified, during their final solemn vote on the entire text this past October 6th (1).
According to the current text, organ donation is governed by the principle of “presumed consent” by the deceased, except if explicitly refused beforehand. In practice however, only one family member need to voice his opposition to the doctors for the organs not to be harvested.
While the bill was being examined before the National Assembly, last March 19, Professor Jean-Louis Touraine, introduced an amendment before the Social Affairs Commission, which considerably hardened its policy: leaving the national register as the exclusive means of expressing refusal. This also aimed at excluding family members for a pre-required agreement, since their consent would no longer be necessary. (Article 46 ter).
In view of the numerous criticisms voiced to the MP’s following this vote, the government tabled another amendment at the public session on April 14, 2015. This amendment would soften the policy a little; stating that inscription on the national registry is not the exclusive means to express one’s refusal for organ donation. However, it maintains the aspect that family members would not be informed of the doctor’s decision.
On Wednesday July 22, 2015, the Senate Social Affairs commission eliminated this provision, in spite of the opposition by the Minister Marisol Touraine. The rapporteurs justified their position by stating that “the delicate character of bioethics topics justify that prior to legislative modifications the issues be evaluated in a calm environment, and subjected to widespread consultations. This is why the bioethics law includes a periodic review to be held before 2018 following a national consultation on Bioethics.
However, in the Senate’s public session on September 29, the Government tried to re-introduce this amendment (N° 1258), which was the object of a thorough discussion. In its’ formulation, this amendment provides that the “doctor inform the relatives of the deceased, prior to the removal of the organs, of the type and nature of the planned removal, in accordance with the good practices determined by the health minister in charge of the biomedical Agency. Organ donation can be practiced on persons having reached the age of majority as long as they have not, during their lifetime, made known their refusal for such a donation, mainly by means of the computerized national register intended for this use. This refusal can be revoked at any moment.”
The ethical challenges are clearly shown.
For MP Jean-Baptiste Lemoyne, “the amendment simply provides for the doctor to inform the family of the deceased. Nonetheless, there is a semantic shift of meaning which is not trivial”; and for René Danesi, this amendment “in any case resembles ‘nationalization’ of the bodies of the deceased. Although it might be the quickest, and easiest solution to implement, in my opinion it is morally indefensible, since the choice to donate one’s organs or not should be a personal, free will, and especially an informed decision.”
Concerning the question of presumed consent of organ donation, MP Dominique de Legge raised this question “Can organ donation be presumed? In my opinion, an act of this nature is by definition a voluntary decision, clearly and positively expressed. Whereas, a donation which is imposed, is no longer a donation.”
For Tugdual Derville, Alliance VITA’s General Delegate, « eliminating M. Touraine’s amendment is a step in the right direction. Rules concerning organ donation can only be modified when reviewing the bioethics law and this must follow a public and professional consultation. It is because organ donation remains a generous and selfless act, which saves numerous lives – reason why it should be encouraged – that it is particularly dangerous to present it as a quasi-automatic process.”
(1) A joint committee will convene in the next few weeks to try to balance out the positions between the MP’s and the senators on all the controversial subjects of this health law, before the final examination planned for each Chamber before the end of the civil year.
by NexDev | October 6, 2015 | Bioethics, Human embryo research, Laws, surveys, protagonists
The question of human embryo research, which is specifically mentioned in the 2013 law, is again being debated in the current Health bill, which the Senate will finish examining on Tuesday October 6th, by a final vote on the totality of the articles.
On April 10, 2015, while the Health bill was being examined in a public session of the National Assembly, an amendment aiming to modify the public Health code was submitted by the Government.
It involved the creation of a new research program for human embryos to be included in Medically Assisted Reproduction, and research on gametes destined to become embryos, stipulating that “biomedical research carried out for medically assisted reproduction can be performed on gametes destined to become embryos, or on in vitro embryos, before or after their transfer, for gestational purposes, if each member of the couple consents.” (Article 37)
Last July, while the text was being examined by the social affairs Commission in the Senate, the rapporteurs remarked that this kind of legislation is equivalent to revising the bioethical laws, and they discarded this provision which was aimed at “answering contentious issues pending before the State Counsel”. This article was not included in a new amendment during the Senate hearing.
by NexDev | October 2, 2015 | Laws, surveys, protagonists, News
Although measures have already been introduced in the Health bill aiming to facilitate even more abortion, the government has still launched a campaign to further promote abortion.
The Health bill proposal is still being examined and debated in the Senate, before the general vote planned for October 6, 2015. The diverging provisions between MP’s and senators will be submitted to a joint committee in the coming weeks.
Several amendments for abortion which had been voted on by MP’S, without genuine debate or research on their impact, were then dismissed by the Senate Social Affairs Commission last July. The Senators reintroduced them during the public session examining the bill, notably:
- eliminating the week’s delay for abortion (article 17 bis)
- giving the ability to health centers to practice surgical abortions (article 16 bis)
- enabling midwives to practice medication abortion (article 31).
During the debate, the co-reporter for Senate Social Affairs, Alain Milon, had yet pointed out “that it is indispensible that the practice of abortions continues to be performed, throughout each step of the intervention, by a doctor and under his responsibility.” specifying that this extension of competences “is not unanimous among mid-wives”. However, it was decided not to include the practice of medication abortions in the initial training program for mid-wives.
The senators removed article 38, dedicated to the regional health project, the provision which had been inserted by the MP’s concerning access to abortion. This amendment requested the Regional Health Agencies to create action plans for access to abortion, notably by including the abortion activity in the contracts of means and objectives which link the Regional Health Agencies to the health establishments; in other words, to establish objectives in the number of abortions to be performed per hospital or per clinic.
These new provisions were debated while simultaneously the Health Minister, Marisol Touraine launched a national campaign “of information regarding abortion and a woman’s right to decide about her own body”, titled “My body, my choice, my right”. Largely present on social networks and in the media, this campaign announced the creation of a free national information number which would be anonymous for those seeking information about abortion. But there were no announcements regarding the prevention of abortion.
Among the worrisome reactions of such trivialization, we note that of the French Bishop’s Conference: “Abortion is not the answer to the necessity of educating”. Denouncing the slogan’s campaign’s suggesting “an individualistic approach to the drama of abortion” it reaffirms “an urgent need not to consider abortion as an anecdote, but as a serious act which implicates and often profoundly and permanently marks those concerned: the women, but also the men and the families”. They also remind of the “existence of numerous organizations dedicated to information, reception and support for those who face the question of abortion, as well as those who have experienced abortion.”
Alliance VITA has already expressed its opinion several times on this subject (1) explaining that reinforcing the idea that abortion is trivial does nothing to help women who know very well that the life of a human being is at stake. The claim to a “right to abortion” promoted by the public authorities prevent us from looking objectively at the reality of abortion, to speak about what women experience, and the consequences that affect certain women’s lives in a deep and sometimes permanent manner. The slogan “It’s my choice” condemns many to secret tears. Alliance VITA reminds us of the urgency to have a genuine prevention policy. Helping women with unplanned or difficult pregnancies is essential if abortions are not to be inevitable.
