In France, the movie
called “4 months, 3 weeks, 2 days” was subject to unanimously
positive review even words of praise. But on this subject as politically
correct in our country as abortion, this unanimity is suspicious. It is even
disturbing.
A bad film about abortion
The film is not a master work on abortion, because this subject is not
treated. I do not say that the subject is not treated as I would like it is.
I say that the subject is not treated at all. What it is treated, and
undoubtedly well treated, it is the prohibition and the repression of
abortion by Ceausescu’s communist regime and the means to get round, that is
totally different.
Whereas we are faced with a matter of principle, the suppression of a human
life, it is only about implementation: how to reach it. If abortion itself
has been the centre of the discussed subject, the question of awareness
would have to be treated. It imposed itself and imposed a positioning in a
way or another. We cannot discuss a question which is essentially, by
definition, of moral nature, without saying a word. Transpose to other
situations which concern death (capital punishment, genocides…), and you
will see, there is no counter-example. But at no time, none of the
protagonists does have the shadow of a moral question about the nature of
the act itself which is going to take place. Is it good or bad? Do I have to
or may I do it? The role of awareness, the existence of an interiorised
standard or the exercise of freedom regarding the homicide nature of this
act itself is visibly not the concern of the director. Here it is not about
blaming him for that.
Mungiu directed a film about communist oppression in Rumania and took
abortion as an example. He directed characters who only wonder how they are
going to do to organize and finance a clandestine abortion in Rumania.
Nothing else.
An amoral view of friendship
There is also another reason which incites to say that the film by Mungiu is
not a great film. It is his idea of friendship. Nobody talked about that.
Quite the opposite, the newspaper La Croix titles one of its papers:
“It is also a story of friendship and solidarity”. But today what
idea do have we about friendship? To help a friend to abort without asking —
her — question and to call that friendship, it is even so a simplistic view
of friendship to say the least. The biggest weakness of the film is maybe in
this. That the woman concerned with an unexpected pregnancy does not see
clear and that she is not asked to explain on the screen, why not. But the
role of the generous and compassionate is absolutely central. It is the main
role.
Is she the main character of the film, who directs the story, who may
inspire the unlucky students to whom the movie will be imposed?
Educational methods of neutrality
Then, does this film offer an educational dimension, as commentators
believed they detect it? To do so, the film should have intrinsically
elements which allow spectators — in this case school kids or school
students! — to have an opinion and then to progress in their thinking. Where
are these elements of judgment? Which are the passages which underline the
moral gravity of the act? They do not exist. All we know, it is that the
heroes may not pay, may be kicked out of the hotel, go to jail, be infected…
Information is complete on risks of clandestinity, it is neutral about the
moral connotation of abortion. Today, it is the only human act apparently
inconsistent and of which we accept individually and collectively the
inconsistency.
From then on, the spectator is ineluctably led to think that it is better to
live in France where abortion has a legal frame. Honestly, it is difficult
to imagine an average school student or school kid, being in the ambient
relativism, and under the influence of masters of whom it is difficult to
think they are mainly able to dare an explicit support to the culture of
life, may lead alone to a different conclusion.
Objectively, the abortion drama is the elimination of the life of a human
being. Here, the abortion drama is to know if the protagonists will finally
reach it…
1. Extracts from the paper by Jean-Marie Le Méné, "4 mois,
3 semaines, 2 jours : un film âprement amoral", Liberté Politique,
8/09/2007.
|
|
|
|
Bioethics and embryo – Pierre-Olivier Arduin 1
|
|
Beyond the controversy
Pierre-Olivier Arduin, in charge of the Bioethics and Human life commission
of the diocese from Fréjus-Toulon and author of an ethical thinking paper
which, last autumn, gave rise to the controversy of Téléthon, has just
published a book, La bioéthique et l’embryon. Being based on the
polemic of last year, this book goes firmly beyond it to propose a thorough
thinking about contemporaneous bioethical issues. The author wants to be in
line with what Mgr Rey, who wrote the preface, calls a pastoral intelligence
aimed at preparing and training the consciences of people who are sensitive
to the protection of human life, which can be fragile and vulnerable.
The discussed themes include the mechanisms of consensus within bioethical
atmospheres, eugenics, the position of biotechnologies in our post-modernity,
ethical relativism and utilitarianism, the state of human embryo, a critical
reading of the French law of Bioethics, the instrumentalisation of language,
the relation between civil law and natural ethical law, totally innovative
scientific aspects of adult stem cells…
A cultural and moral shock
Finally beyond these major questions, the author opens a larger perspective
which is the one of a cultural and moral shock between, from one hand, the
post-modern relativist ideology, and from another one, the current
magisterium of the Church which remains the only speaker of the universal
moral conscience. In this book, written as a strong call for thinking and
acting of those attached to the intangible respect of human life since its
conception, it emerges that the consciousness objection expresses dynamics
able to shake the contemporaneous strengths of the culture of death.
1. La bioéthique et l’embryon,
quels enjeux après la controverse du Téléthon ?, Pierre-Olivier Arduin,
préface de Mgr Rey, avant-propos de Jean-Marie Le Méné, éditions de
l’Emmanuel, 2007. |
|
|
|
|
|
British authorisation
In May 2007, British government authorised the creation of “man-animal”
hybrid embryos (see
Gènéthique No 89, May 2007). The Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Authority has just accepted that some research laboratories produce
these embryos, removing this way the barrier which separates human species
from all other species, for therapeutic progress...
Reviewing French law?
On 11th September, Valérie Pécresse, French Minister for Research, announced
that she would like “that from now, the Agency of Biomedicine is in
charge of the ethical issues the British decision creates" to authorise
the creation of a man-animal embryo. “These questions do not emerge today
in our country within their current legal framework, but could appear within
the framework of reviewing law of bioethics planed in 2009.”
In fact, the bioethics law of 2004 states as a principle that “research
on embryo is prohibited”. By derogation, “a research can only be
conducted on embryos conceived in vitro within the framework of a medically
assisted reproduction which are not anymore subject to parental project. It
can only be performed with the prior written consent of the couple they come
from” (CSP, art. L.2151-5). Within this framework, today more than
30,000 embryos, with no “parental project”, are available in French
laboratories and thus “could”, according to law, be used for research
subject to parental authorisation1.
In addition, “the fact to proceed to in vitro conception or to the
constitution by human embryo cloning for research purposes is punished by
seven years in jail and a 100,000 euro fine” (CSP art. L.2163-4).
The objective of this new technique of creation of hybrid embryos would be
to obtain an embryo, according to cloning principle, by injecting the
nucleus of a stem cell in an oocyte taken from an animal, for example, a cow,
in order to have stem cells for research. Mgr Elio Sgreccia, president of
the pontifical Academy for Life, denounced “a monstrous act toward human
dignity” and asks the scientific community to mobilise.
1. Annual report 2006 of the Agency of Biomedicine. |
|
|
|
Great
Britain authorises PGD in case of cancer predisposition |
|
Extended Preimplantation
Diagnosis
For the first time, the resort to preimplantation diagnosis (PGD) has just
been authorised by Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to
select an embryo free from genes predisposing to breast and ovarian cancer.
This embryo is selected in vitro among a certain number. The selected
one will be implanted whereas the other will be eliminated. Dr Paul Serhal’s
team (University College Hospital of London) is pleased about this
world first: “PGD will be able, from now, to be implemented on the basis
of a risk estimated to less than 100%. In case of family history, the risk
of breast cancer onset is estimated between 60% and 80% and to 40% for
ovarian cancer”.
From the disease to the predisposition
In France, the law authorises to resort to PGD when a couple has a “strong
probability to give birth to a child with a specifically severe genetic
disease recognised to be incurable at the time of the diagnosis” (CSP
art. L2131-4), in order to choose to implant only embryos free from disease.
Already some teams, as Pr Viville’s team, Head of Department of Laboratory
of reproductive biology and head of the centre for preimplantation diagnosis
(University College Hospital of Strasbourg), thinks that it can extend the
use of PGD in case of simple predisposition, after a thorough review of the
family records. A thought is in progress, conducted under the aegis of the
National Cancer Institute. Then the embryos will be destroyed without
knowing if one day they will have the genetic affection.
|
