The press review index from 20 June to 24 June 2005

Regarding the adoption of embryos

The baccalaureate subject that’s creating waves…

This year, students sitting the scientific exam in the literary baccalaureate had the choice between 2 subjects, one of which was: “Procreation, reproduction control”.

Candidates were asked to answer 4 questions:

- Indicate the effects of the pill on the ovary, the endometrium and the cervical mucus
- Explain the mechanism of the pill
- Quote 2 other means of contraception. Give the principle of their contraceptive action
- Explain the arguments in favour of the legal authorisation of abortion in France and explain the idea according to which abortion is not considered as a means of contraception.

To answer these questions, students could base their arguments on documents taken from the newspaper Le Monde, dated Thursday 9th December 2004. These documents were, however, ideologically oriented and scientifically highly disputable. It could be read: “contrary to the affirmations of the anti-abortion lobby when the law was adopted, legalisation of abortion had no impact on demographics. An abortion is not one less birth, but a birth put off ‘til later in more favourable conditions”. The exercise therefore consisted in giving students an erroneous statement to defend using ideological arguments.

In the corrections, online on the internet, it is explained that the pill is a contraceptive as it prevents, among other things, the development of the endometrium and therefore prevents nidation… In this case, it would have to be said that it is an abortive.

Of the two other means of contraception, students had to propose the I.U.D. The I.U.D. however, usually prevents “nidation”. Once again, this is an abortive and not a means of contraception.

Finally, the arguments that the students were to put forward in favour of the legalisation of abortion were as follows: maternity is not forced but chosen, parenthood is joint, there is no affect on fertility...

To answer this last question, candidates had to give the arguments in favour of the legalisation of abortion. They could only succeed by lying, or fail the exam…

The press echoes the protests that have arisen. The justification for abortion “is an impossible subject to defend for many, believers or otherwise”, declared Jean-Marie Le Méné, president of the Jérôme Lejeune Foundation.

With the Association for the Foundation of political service, the Lejeune Foundation wrote to Gilles de Robien, Minister for National Education, to ask him that this question not be graded, failing which they would initiate proceedings to have the exam cancelled.

These associations believe that the exam is “unfair” because it calls into question the "freedom of conscience” of candidates obliged to “defend a questionable thesis using erroneous arguments”.

Le Figaro (Marie-Estelle Pech)22/06/05 -  Le Figaro 18/06/05 - Le Nouvel Observateur 17/06/05 - Ouest France 18/06/05 - Le Parisien 18/06/05 - Le Quotidien du Médecin 20/06/05

Regarding the adoption of embryos

Zenit proposes an interview with Father Thomas Williams, dean of theology at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University and expert in moral theology, on the issue of embryo adoption. This subject is currently being debated within the Church.

He starts by reminding that: “we are starting from an unnatural situation, one that never should have existed. The production and cryogenic preservation of human embryos --- upwards of 400,000 already --- is a moral aberration, and morally sensitive people spontaneously recoil from this procedure”.

Asked about the fact that embryo adoption would tacitly imply approval of in vitro fertilisation, he answers: “Not at all. When a couple adopts a child that was conceived by an act of rape, does the couple condone that violence? Of course not. The child that came into existence because of that terrible act, through no fault of its own, is still worthy of kindness and care”.

To the journalist’s question: “But you must admit that embryo adoption can only encourage the production and preservation of more embryos in this way,” father Williams believes that we should first ask ourselves “what is the right thing to do for these little persons. Sometimes doing the right thing carries with it unpleasant consequences, or mixed results. But to condition our treatment of persons by the possible effects that it will have on others would be to reduce those persons to a means, and our morality would decay into a utilitarian calculus”, he adds.

Father Williams believes that embryo adoption underscores the reality that each human being, no matter how small, is worthy of care by the community.

The condemnation of embryo adoption sends out a very inconsistent message regarding the sanctity of human life, he explains.
Some believe that embryo adoption would constitute “aggressive medical treatment”, but Father Williams explains that there is a misapplication of the terms: “We need to remember that "aggressive medical treatment" refers to futile medical treatment of terminally ill patients, not to the normal care of healthy persons”. He recalls the teaching of Pope John Paul II, who stated that medical treatment can be refused when death is clearly imminent and inevitable and when the treatment is either "disproportionate to any expected results" or imposes "an excessive burden on the patient and his family." These conditions are not met in the case of frozen embryos.

Finally, father Williams recalls that there is no clear magisterial teaching on this question.

Zenit 22/06/05 

On the occasion of the congress of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) currently being held in Copenhagen, researchers from the University of Sheffield in England presented results showing that it might be possible to produce reproductive stem cells, the cells at the origin of spermatozoa and eggs, from embryonic stem cells.

These reproductive stem cells could then be implanted into the testicles of men or women’s ovaries to allow their hormonal environment to complete the development of the cells and end in the formation of spermatozoa and eggs. “We are still 10 years away from clinical application, we still have a lot of work to do and we have to prove that this technique is without risk", explained one of the scientists in charge of this study.

The aim of this work would be to provide a remedy for masculine or feminine infertility, be it of genetic, accidental or environmental origin.

The authors of this study explain that “as this technique would enable eggs to be produced from primordial masculine germ cells, homosexual couples would be able to have a child that is genetically linked to both of them”. Similarly, “one man alone may be the origin of a child from his sperm and an egg that he has produced using this technique”. This poses “new questions on how we define parenthood”, they added.

During this same congress, Belgian researchers announced that they had managed to produce clones of human embryos from immature eggs. These eggs were produced by ovarian stimulation as part of in vitro fertilisation. This technique means that “mature eggs”, difficult to obtain, are no longer necessary. The embryos obtained did not exceed the 16-cell stage.

 La Croix (Denis Sergent) 20/06/05 - - Le Figaro 21/06/05

MAP: treatment costs

A medical symposium (Ibsa) is looking into the cost of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatments. A comparison was made for three countries: Germany, France and the United Kingdom, on the cost of ovarian stimulation. Two treatments are possible, one of which is far more expensive, but which is also the most widely used.

In Germany, since January 2004, a new law obliges couples wishing to avail of medically assisted procreation to cover 50% of the drugs costs. For this reason, the least expensive treatment is often chosen by couples, and the number of ovarian stimulations has been halved. It should be noted that in Germany in 2003, the most expensive treatment (using recombinant gonadotropins) cost the authorities 73.5 million euros, whereas the least expensive (using urinary gonadotropins) cost “only” 22 million euros for the same year.

In France, the most expensive treatment is taking on greater importance, leading to higher expenses for the authorities. This surplus is unjustified as both treatments are just as effective and just as tolerated. 45 455 cycles of IVF were carried out in 1999, bringing the cost to society to 130 million euros, for the IVF cycles alone, and to 170 million euros taking into account the cost of pregnancies. If all stimulations were carried out using recominant gonadotropins, the additional cost is estimated at roughly 24 million euros.

On the contrary, in the United Kingdom, the National Health Service (NHS) suspended the use of recombinant gonadotropins in February 2004, deeming that, for identical efficacy, there was no basis for choosing the most expensive treatment.

Two studies presented during the 21^st conference of the European Society for Human Reproduction and Embryology, focus on the cost of multiple births, 30% of which are due to IVF treatment.

In France, doctor Jacques de Mouzon (Kremlin Bicêtre Hospital), estimates that the cost of birth of triplets is 39 320 euros, or 8½ times that of a single baby. This is due to longer and more expensive hospital stays and care following the birth, than for a single baby. Doctor Mouzon therefore recommends reducing the number of embryos during IVF embryo transfer.

An English doctor estimates that the birth of triplets in his country costs 10 times more than a single birth, and three times more than twins. Since May 2004 in Great Britain, it is forbidden to implant more than 2 embryos for a women under 40, and 3 embryos over that age.

In Belgium, only one embryo per cycle is implanted. A doctor from Anvers explains that children born of a single embryo per transfer is healthier than the others. The argument is therefore not economic alone.

However, doctor Mouzon underlines that “it is important to take account of the cost parameter when choosing assisted procreation methods, as neither the public authorities nor citizens have unlimited funds”.

  Le Quotidien du Médecin (Dr Micheline Fourcade) 24/06/05 -  Le Figaro (Martine Perez)  24/06/05