Select Page

03.- Assistance médicale à la procreation / Procreation assistance — CHURCH OF FRANCE / États généraux de la bioéthique — Which world do we want for tomorrow? The brave new world…

03.- Assistance médicale à la procreation / Procreation assistance — CHURCH OF FRANCE /  États généraux de la bioéthique — Which world do we want for tomorrow? The brave new world…
Advertisement

Scientific and legal data :

Med­ical­ly Assist­ed Repro­duc­tion (MAS) refers to prac­tices aimed at the con­cep­tion of a child with­out the sex­u­al union of man and woman: insem­i­na­tion of a woman by her spouse or part­ner (AIC) or by a donor (DAI) in vit­ro fer­til­iza­tion with embryo trans­fer, in case of sperm fail­ure or egg dona­tion (IVF-ET involv­ing male and/or female gamete donation).

The first IVF birth was obtained in Eng­land in 1978 and in France in 1982. Accord­ing to the law, gamete dona­tion is free and anony­mous; today it is insuf­fi­cient to cov­er all requests.

In most IVF, sev­er­al human embryos are con­ceived. Those that are not trans­ferred into the wom­an’s uterus are frozen. In some cas­es, sev­er­al are trans­ferred into the uterus and then an “embry­on­ic reduc­tion” is per­formed to keep only one in the uterus, the oth­ers being destroyed.

In 2015, 24,839 chil­dren, or 3.1 per cent of births, were cov­ered by this scheme.

In cur­rent French law, PMA pur­sues a ther­a­peu­tic objec­tive: to avoid the trans­mis­sion of a seri­ous dis­ease or to com­pen­sate for a med­ical­ly diag­nosed patho­log­i­cal infertility[1]. It there­fore only con­cerns live, male and female cou­ples of child­bear­ing age who are the bear­ers of a “parental project”. The inabil­i­ty to pro­cre­ate of sin­gle per­sons, same-sex cou­ples, per­sons over the age of pro­cre­ation or the deceased is not patho­log­i­cal and is not intend­ed to be treat­ed by medicine.

Questions this raises:

With­out a father, by law. The exten­sion of the PMA to sin­gle women and wom­en’s cou­ples would amount to a pri­ori decree­ing the exis­tence of chil­dren with­out fathers: “In the parental frame­work result­ing from the choice of wom­en’s cou­ples and sin­gle women, the child would have, in its his­to­ry, no image of father, known or unknown, but only that of a donor. From a psy­cho­log­i­cal point of view, the respect due to the child and the con­struc­tion of his per­son­al­i­ty is seri­ous­ly wound­ed. From the point of view of soci­ety, where the role of par­ents is already dis­rupt­ed in many ways and author­i­ty is ques­tioned, this planned father­less­ness is prob­lem­at­ic. A minor­i­ty opin­ion of CCNE states that “the role of a father, in inter­ac­tion and coop­er­a­tion with that of the moth­er, is essen­tial in the con­struc­tion of the child’s per­son­al­i­ty and his rela­tion­ship to the diver­si­ty of soci­ety, includ­ing male-female otherness.

Inequal­i­ty. CCNE acknowl­edges that open­ing the PMA to all women would pro­duce inequal­i­ty: “Expand­ing access to the IAD could be at the ori­gin of “inequal­i­ties” for chil­dren born from such AMPs because they would be deprived of a father in the case of female cou­ples, of a father and of a dou­ble parental lin­eage in the case of sin­gle women[4].

It is false to say that there is “unequal treat­ment” between women who live in het­ero­sex­u­al cou­ples and who may have access to DAI for infer­til­i­ty rea­sons, and fer­tile women alone or in cou­ples. The Euro­pean Court of Human Rights val­i­dates French law: “The IAD is only autho­rised in France for the ben­e­fit of infer­tile het­ero­sex­u­al cou­ples, a sit­u­a­tion which is not com­pa­ra­ble to that of the applicants[women’s cou­ple]. It fol­lows, for the Court, that the French leg­is­la­tion con­cern­ing the DAI can­not be con­sid­ered to be at the ori­gin of a dif­fer­ence of treat­ment of which the appli­cants are victims.

Mer­chan­dis­ing the body. PMA for all women leads to the gen­er­al­iza­tion of gamete dona­tion, where­as dona­tions are already insuf­fi­cient. That is why some peo­ple advo­cate a solu­tion that would go from donat­ing sperm to sell­ing it, at the cost of aban­don­ing the prin­ci­ple of free[6]. In addi­tion, the mul­ti­pli­ca­tion of chil­dren born from semen would increase the risk of meet­ing and pos­si­ble inbreeding.

Prin­ci­ple of anonymi­ty. Today, anonymi­ty is a prin­ci­ple guar­an­tee­ing the pos­si­bil­i­ty of gamete dona­tion. There is only one excep­tion: ther­a­peu­tic neces­si­ty, which gives the doc­tor access to med­ical data con­cern­ing the donor but not to his identity[7]. This rule of anonymi­ty is “fal­la­cious” because it applies just as much to germ cells as to oth­er cells; how­ev­er, germ cells have a com­plete­ly dif­fer­ent voca­tion: the con­cep­tion of a new child[8]. This rule, spe­cif­ic to France, remains prob­lem­at­ic because it does not pre­vent pos­si­ble con­san­guini­ties. It is fur­ther under­mined by the pos­si­bil­i­ties offered by com­put­ers: thanks to soft­ware sold in the Unit­ed States, for exam­ple, it has been pos­si­ble to find the iden­ti­ty of an anony­mous sperm donor. Thus, the real ques­tion remains that of PMA with donor, a tech­nique that dis­so­ci­ates bio­log­i­cal kin­ship from social kin­ship: it does not respect the right of the child (see the card on gamete donation).

Selec­tion of indi­vid­u­als. Allow­ing insem­i­na­tion of non-ster­ile women would mean aban­don­ing the cur­rent ther­a­peu­tic cri­te­ria. PMA would then be acces­si­ble to all, includ­ing the most numer­ous numer­i­cal­ly fer­tile male/female cou­ples, who would con­sti­tute the ulti­mate tar­get of the large pro­cre­ation mar­ket: once the ther­a­peu­tic lock has been lift­ed, we will has­ten to offer tai­lor-made ser­vices to choose one char­ac­ter­is­tic for the child or avoid anoth­er. This could be the door to indi­vid­ual selec­tion or legal eugen­ics. It is under­stand­able that CCNE took the trou­ble to “request that access and fea­si­bil­i­ty con­di­tions be defined[9]” con­cern­ing the open­ing of the PMA to all women.

Anthropological and ethical visions :

Uni­ty of the human per­son. The LDC extend­ed to sin­gle women and female cou­ples com­pletes the dis­junc­tion between bio­log­i­cal fer­til­iza­tion and social kin­ship. If the human being is a social ani­mal, it is also a liv­ing body. To divide it in two, sep­a­rat­ing the rela­tion­ship of fil­i­a­tion from its bio­log­i­cal anchor­age, is an act of vio­lence against the uni­ty of the human per­son. This is a “uni­fied total­i­ty”, at once bio­log­i­cal, psy­cho­log­i­cal, spir­i­tu­al and social. Its har­mo­nious inte­gral devel­op­ment pre­sup­pos­es that these var­i­ous aspects are tak­en into account togeth­er and not sep­a­rat­ed or even opposed. Fil­i­a­tion must remain a bio­log­i­cal process, result­ing from the union of bod­ies, psy­chic, result­ing from a dif­fer­ence in gen­er­a­tion and sex­u­al dif­fer­ence, and social, rec­og­nized by the insti­tu­tions of the city.

The wed­ding. This exten­sion of the PMA to sin­gle women weak­ens the link between mar­riage and fil­i­a­tion. The insti­tu­tion of mar­riage is a nec­es­sary foun­da­tion of soci­ety and remains the respect­ful place in which a new human life is born[10].

Wel­com­ing a sit­u­a­tion is not orga­niz­ing it. Sin­gle women have often found ways to have chil­dren. But “if chil­dren who do not know their father and chil­dren raised by a sin­gle par­ent or in a homo­sex­u­al cou­ple have always exist­ed, there is a dif­fer­ence between “cop­ing” with such a sit­u­a­tion occur­ring in pri­vate life with­out hav­ing been planned or organ­ised by soci­ety, and insti­tut­ing it ab initio.

If we judge today severe­ly the times which tol­er­at­ed the igno­rance of the rights of some, in the gen­er­al indif­fer­ence, how can we resign our­selves to a law which ignores the rights of children?

Rights of the child. The Inter­na­tion­al Con­ven­tion on the Rights of the Child, signed and rat­i­fied by France, estab­lish­es the right of every child, as far as pos­si­ble, “to know and be cared for by his or her par­ents” (art. 7). To delib­er­ate­ly orga­nize the era­sure of the father is not com­pat­i­ble with this right. These chil­dren’s rights are bind­ing com­mit­ments for the State.

CCNE recog­nis­es the impor­tance of this: “While the’right to the child’ is often invoked in soci­etal demands, it has no legal basis; on the oth­er hand, a major eth­i­cal con­cern must be that of the rights of the child, in par­tic­u­lar that of locat­ing the child’s his­to­ry and fam­i­ly envi­ron­ment in rela­tion to the his­to­ries and fam­i­ly set­tings of oth­er chil­dren, what­ev­er the mode of pro­cre­ation from which it is derived[12].

The child is not a right, but a “gift”. The real suf­fer­ing that con­sti­tutes the absence of a child does not allow it to be trans­formed into a right that it would be law­ful to claim before society[13]. For his serene devel­op­ment, the child needs to be received as a gift[14].

Ref­er­ences :

Bruno Sain­tôt, “How med­ical­ly assist­ed is pro­cre­ation? Les répons­es para­doxales des vis du CCNE”, Études, Sep­tem­ber 2017, n° 4241, p. 38.
Aude Mirkovic, “L’élar­gisse­ment de l’as­sis­tance médi­cale à la pro­créa­tion (AMP)”, Médecine et droit, Feb­ru­ary 2018.
Con­gre­ga­tion for the Doc­trine of the Faith, Instruc­tion Dig­ni­tas per­son­ae, 8 Sep­tem­ber 2008.

—————————————————————–

[1] L’article L2141‑2 du Code de san­té publique stip­ule : « L’assistance médi­cale à la pro­créa­tion a pour objet de remédi­er à l’infertilité d’un cou­ple ou d’éviter la trans­mis­sion à l’enfant ou à un mem­bre du cou­ple d’une mal­adie d’une par­ti­c­ulière grav­ité. Le car­ac­tère pathologique de l’infertilité doit être médi­cale­ment diagnostiqué. »

[2] CCNE, Avis n° 126 du 15 juin 2017 sur les deman­des socié­tales de recours à l’assistance médi­cale à la pro­créa­tion (AMP), p. 22.

[3] CCNE, ibid., p. 49. Avis minori­taire signé par 11 mem­bres du CCNE sur 40 membres

[4] CCNE, ibid., p. 19.

[5] CEDH, 15 mars 2012, n° 25951/07, Gas et Dubois c/ France, § 63.

[6] Si les gamètes peu­vent être ven­dus, pourquoi pas les organes ? Cela serait con­traire à la notion de don d’organes, qui doit demeur­er altru­iste. Voir Code civ­il, art. 16–6 ; Code de la san­té publique, art ; L.1211–4, al. 1er

[7] Code de la San­té publique, art. L. 1211–5, al. 2.

[8] Voir JR Binet, Droit de la bioéthique, LGDJ, 2017, p. 249–251.

[9] CCNE, Avis n° 126, op. cit., p. 27 et 28.

[10] Cf. Con­gré­ga­tion pour la doc­trine de la foi, Instruc­tion Dig­ni­tas per­son­ae, 8 sep­tem­bre 2008, n. 6 : « Le mariage et la famille con­stituent le con­texte authen­tique où la vie humaine trou­ve son orig­ine. En son sein, la vie provient d’un acte qui exprime l’amour réciproque entre l’homme et la femme. Une pro­créa­tion réelle­ment respon­s­able vis-à-vis de l’enfant qui va naître «doit être le fruit du mariage». » L’InstructionD onum vitae est ici citée.

[11] CCNE, Avis n° 126, op. cit., p. 20.

[12] CCNE, Avis n° 126, op. cit., p. 43. Il est intéres­sant de lire la suite de l’Avis du CCNE.

[13] Cf. Instruc­tion Dig­ni­tas per­son­ae, n. 16 : « L’Église recon­naît la légitim­ité du désir d’avoir un enfant, et com­prend les souf­frances des con­joints éprou­vés par des prob­lèmes d’infertilité. Ce désir ne peut cepen­dant pass­er avant la dig­nité de la vie humaine, au point de la sup­planter. Le désir d’un enfant ne peut jus­ti­fi­er sa «pro­duc­tion», de même que celui de ne pas en con­cevoir ne saurait en jus­ti­fi­er l’abandon ou la destruction. »

[14] Con­gré­ga­tion pour la Doc­trine de la Foi, Instruc­tion Don­um vitae, 22 févri­er 1987 : « Tout être humain doit être accueil­li comme un don et une béné­dic­tion de Dieu. » (II, A,1) Quelle que soit la manière avec laque­lle il a été conçu, « tout enfant qui vient au monde devra cepen­dant être accueil­li comme un don vivant de la Bon­té divine et être éduqué avec amour » (II, B,5). « Un droit véri­ta­ble et strict à l’enfant serait con­traire à sa dig­nité et à sa nature. L’enfant n’est pas un dû et il ne peut être con­sid­éré comme objet de pro­priété : il est plutôt un don – le plus grand et le plus gra­tu­it du mariage. » (II, B,8)


[1] Par la géné­tique, on étudie le génome et son envi­ron­nement biologique. Cet envi­ron­nement a une telle influ­ence sur l’expression des gênes (et non sur leur struc­ture interne) qu’il mérite d’être étudié pour lui-même : c’est l’épigénétique.
[2] Fusion homme-chemin, ce qui est encore plus que l’hybridation homme-machine.

ADLAUDATOSI INTEGRAL ECOLOGY FORUM WEBINARS

You access our webi­na­rs videos on: https://adlaudatosi.org/#course

 

Religious Helping Trafficking Victims along the Road of Recovery (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Religious Working In International Advocacy Against Human Trafficking (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Impact Of Human Trafficking On Health: Trauma (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Impact Of Human Trafficking On Health: Healing (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — Where Are We Now? (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — What can be done? (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

International Prosecution Of Human Trafficking — Best Practices (ON-DEMAND VIDEO WEBINAR)

Demand As Root Cause For Human Trafficking – Sex Trafficking & Prostitution

OUR MISSION:

THE PURPOSE IS TO SHARE BEST PRACTICES AND PROMOTE ACTIONS AGAINST HUMAN TRAFFICKING.

WE MAKE AVAILABLE TO YOU GUIDES AND RESEARCH ON TRAFFICKING IN HUMAN BEINGS FROM THE MOST RECOGNISED LEGAL AND OPERATIONAL ACTORS.

Human Trafficking — Interview with Prof. Michel Veuthey, Order of Malta — 44th UN Human Right Council 2020

POPE’S PAYER INTENTION FOR FEBRUARY 2020: Hear the cries of migrants victims of human trafficking

FRANCE — BLOG DU COLLECTIF “CONTRE LA TRAITE DES ÊTRES HUMAINS”

Church on the frontlines in fight against human trafficking

Holy See — PUBLICATION OF PASTORAL ORIENTATIONS ON HUMAN TRAFFICKING 2019

RIGHT TO LIFE AND HUMAN DIGNITY GUIDEBOOK

Catholic social teaching

Doctrine sociale de l’Église catholique

Register to our series of webinars adlaudatosi on Human Trafficking

 
 

You have successfully registered !