|
First human cloning?
In May 2005, Pr Woo Suk Hwang’s Korean team announced to have succeeded in
cultivating eleven stem cell lines obtained from cloned embryos, which are
cells susceptible to differentiate into various tissues. Korean researchers,
embarrassed by the designation "cloning" prefer to talk about “production
of embryonic stem cell lines by nuclear transfer”.
Immediately, the ex-minister for Research Roger-Gérard Schwartzenberg, today
deputy, introduced a bill for authorising researches on therapeutic cloning
in France.
The Bill
In order neither to "not hamper the French researchers" nor "to disadvantage
ill patients", the bill sets as a principle to authorize, by supervising
them, researches on therapeutic cloning.
For M. Schwartzenberg, the stem cell graft obtained from embryos developed
in vitro and which are not subject to a parental project (which it is
authorized in France exceptionally since the law of August 2004 of which the
application decrees are foreseen for Autumn 2005 and are already practised
on imported embryonic stem cell lines), may cause rejection phenomenon. Only
stem grafts obtained by cloning would allow avoiding immunologic rejection.
Cloning would allow constituting cell lines totally compatible with the
immune system of the patient, donor of the nuclei. Although most of
researchers acknowledge that there is still a lot of work to do in order to
pass from comprehension of pathologic living organisms to the possibility to
cure them, this bill is supported by four French scientists, Professors
Beaulieu, Fischer, Frydman and Peschanski.
Embryo and politic
Mr Schwartzenberg does not take into account the ethical arguments
estimating that “in a laic republic, the legislator cannot transform a
faith article into a law”, considering that the fact to confer a sacred
character to “an assembly of 125 cells still undifferentiated” “depends
on spiritual or philosophic convictions of each other”...
In the exposition of motives and relying on the text of the Treaty
establishing a Constitution for Europe, Mr. Schwartzenberg indicates that “in
its article II-63, the Chart of fundamental rights, integrated to this
treaty, only prohibits human reproductive cloning, but not therapeutic
cloning. If the ratification of this treaty by France is authorized by the
referendum of 29 May 2005, this treaty will have an authority above the laws,
in accordance with the article 55 of French Constitution of 1958.”
French bioethics law could even be illegal in the Union: “dispositions of
French law of 6 August 2004 prohibiting therapeutic cloning could be
censured by the European Court of Justice”. “As expressly reminded by
the I-6 of the European Constitution, the law of European Union shall have
primacy over the law of the Member States".
Cloning: scientific advance?
Therapeutic cloning only aims to obtain embryonic stem cells in order to
find new therapies. But:
- The therapy with embryonic stem cells does not give results.
In Great Britain, research on embryos is authorised for 15 years: it does
not give any therapeutic result.
- its promoters try to justify it announcing that it will allow them to
obtain embryonic stem cells compatible with the recipient organism, of whom
the clone was taken from. But researches show that injected embryonic stem
cells, whatever their origin (taken from a supernumerary embryo for
instance) are not rejected. So it is not necessary to perform cloning to
create an embryo "compatible" with the donor.
Cloning is dangerous:
- Embryonic stem cells taken from and then rejected are not controllable.
Because of its extraordinary potential of differentiation, the recipient
organism does not know how to control their development. They convert into
tumoral cells, unlike controlled adult stem cells.
- 100% of clones (animals) are abnormal, so their cells too...
For Carine Camby, director-general of the recent French Biomedicine Agency,
there is no hurry. "If we have to make a new decision, this cannot be done
under the pressure of a scientific publication, even if it is interesting."
Reproductive cloning
Following Unesco report of August 2004, scientists recognize that there is
no possible therapeutic research on embryonic cells, obtained or not by
cloning, and today use the term of "research cloning". Even if this cloning
is called research, scientific, therapeutic or reproductive cloning, it is,
in all cases, reproductive as it involves the conception of a human being.
 .
|
|
The 11 and 12 last June, in Italy, citizens
were called on to abrogate by referendum, some measures of the law 40
relative to assisted procreation, in other words, to liberalize research on
embryo and procreation medical techniques. It required 50% + 1 vote of
participation so that the vote was valid. The opponents of the referendum
asked for abstention. Less than 26% of the voters went to vote. The law of
February 2004 supervising rigorously resort conditions to AMP and foreseeing
protective measures for the embryo (Gènéthique n°52) will not be modified.
The genesis of the law 40
On 10 February 2004 Italian Parliament approved a bill prohibiting the
experimentation on embryo, their freezing, the resort to sperm or oocyte
donors as well as surrogate mothers. It also restraints the medically
assisted procreation to "stable" heterosexual couples. The final bill
is passed with a large majority. Participants to the law are pleased then to
put an end to 25 years of drifts in fertility medicine, in this country
which allowed a 62 year-old Roman woman to have a baby and which let Dr
Antinori announce the launching of a program to clone babies. It became
urgent for Italy to restore clearly rules regarding bioethics.
The law 40 sets as a principle that all embryos have the right to live
and that they cannot be eliminated or used as research material. Methods of
medically assisted procreation must respect this principle. It is allowed to
conceive by fertilization in vitro a maximum of three embryos.
These have to be immediately transferred. If this decision allows
mother health to be respected, it also avoids the “supernumerary” embryo
freezing. The absence of frozen embryo stock is the more reliable solution
to prevent research on embryos.
Political battle
Just once voted, this law was judged to be too restrictive by the opponents
who endeavoured to abrogate it. The radical party regroups the 800,000
signatures required to obtain from the government the calling for
parliamentary referendum.
The third vote: the abstention
Reactions are complicated in the side of those who want to preserve the law
40 because they can vote "no" but they can also abstain. If the quorum of
voters is not reached, the referendum is annulled and the law 40 is not
modified. The abstention became de facto a possible and efficient mode of
expression, a third electoral voice. Manifestations and TV spots urged not
to vote. "Life cannot be voted, choose not to vote"...
The Church: for a political realism
If the law 40 is not perfect for Catholics, since it authorizes
fertilization in vitro, but yet it will find from them its main
supporters, because the essential is preserved: the dignity of the embryo is
recognized and defended. In this context, the intervention of the Church is
of growing interest. Cardinal Ruini, president of the Episcopal Conference,
calls Italian citizens not to vote. It is not to give their commitment into
political life, he specified, but at the contrary to show a political
realism. In a speech directed to Episcopal conference the Pope Benedict XVI
officially supported the call of the bishops: "within such a commitment, I
am close by the word and pray."
None compromise
This very striking speech is not amazing when we remind the "Doctrinal note
about participation of Catholics in political life" (Nov. 2002) by Cardinal
Ratzinger. Passed over in silence in France, it clearly redefines the share
of roles. Rightful autonomy is only justified if it is understood as "autonomy
of the political or civil sphere from that of religion and the Church", “but
not from that of morality". Catholics have “a grave and clear
obligation to oppose any law that attacks”.
|
|
A study, carried out by Doctor Caroline Moreau’s team
in the framework of Inserm Epipage group1, analyses the risk of
preterm birth associated to a precedent induced abortion and analyses the
causes. This inquest was made in 1997 and lists the preterm births in
maternity hospital from nine French regions, representing one third of
births. In France, 60% of women who abort have less than 30 years and most
of them would like to have a baby after one or several abortions. What will
their obstetrical future be?
Increasing of preterm births
The relation between a former abortion and preterm birth is more frequent
for the very preterm delivery (between 22 and 27 pregnancy weeks) and the
risk increases with the number of elective abortions. Before 28 weeks, the
more frequent cause is haemorrhage (placenta previa or rupture of placenta),
the preterm rupture of membranes or the spontaneous idiopathic preterm
labour. After 28 weeks, the more frequent cause of preterm births is
hypertension and the defect of foetus growth and the relation with abortion
is not significant.
This study confirms the results of previous European inquests which
suggested that women who experienced an abortion presented a higher risk of
amniotic liquid infection generating a preterm rupture of membranes as well
as cervical and uterine abnormalities generating a preterm birth.
1-
Previous induced abortions and the risk of very preterm
delivery: results of the EPIPAGE study, BJOG 2005 Apr.; vol.112, p.430
|
