L’élargissement de l’assistance médicale à la procréation (AMP)

The opening of medically assisted procreation (MPA) for single women and couples of women, that is, apart from medical indications of infertility, raises the main question of the eradication of the father and of the paternal branch of the child's descent, which is difficult to reconcile with respect for the rights of the child, who has the right to know and be cared for his parents, as far as possible (International Convention on Human Rights of the child, Article 7 – 1). Moreover, the MPA claim for women appears to be an opportunity to lift the therapeutic lock to generalize access to artificial procreation, including fertile male/female couples, the most numerous being the target the most lucrative in the procreation market contained to date by the therapeutic objective assigned by the law to the MPA.     

Responsabilité médicale et expertise : de la loi du Talion à la loi Kouchner

Despite the appearance from the Mesopotamian era of medical responsibility, an apparent impunity of the doctor will be in place until the 19th century. In France, it will be necessary to wait for the Napoleonic codes of 1804 and 1810 in order to clearly dissociate the civil and criminal responsibilities of the doctor. If liability for fault remains the rule in medical matters today, the concept of liability without fault introduced by the industrial revolution and the legislation on industrial accidents was taken up by the Kouchner law of 2002. It definitively opens the way to a statutory and legal compensation for non-faulty medical accidents under national solidarity via the National Office for Compensation for Medical Accidents (ONIAM) and the Conciliation and Compensation Commissions (CCI). Expertise in medical liability is now the backbone of the victim compensation process. It guides the magistrate in the recognition of faulty or non-faulty medical liability and helps him to set the amount of compensation allocated with regard to bodily injury.     

2004–2009 : révision de la loi de bioéthique en France,quels enjeux,quels débats ? Assistance médicale à la procréation,gestation pour autrui,transplantation

The bioethics law, adopted for the first time in 1994 and revised in 2004, is under revision again. This process has raised numerous debates at various institutional, professional and social levels. The government also organised a unique type of citizens’ consultation: the General Estates in Bioethics (GEB). Several panels of citizens had the opportunity to express their informed opinion on a selected set of topics concerning the law revision, after having received a special training by an expert committee. We have analysed the contributions of six public bodies – the Parliament Office for Scientific and Technological Choices Evaluation (OPECST), the National Consultative Ethics Committee, (CCNE), the State Council, (CE), the Biomedical Agency, (ABM), the Senate and the Parliamentary Information Mission for this bioethics law revision – as well as the final GEB's report. In this article, we present and compare their proposals on three themes: Medically assisted procreation (MAP), surrogacy and transplantation. Whereas a consensus emerged from the debates on certain issues – apart from the Senate, all institutions seem to be in favour of maintaining the current banning of surrogacy – other points are still under debate – how to open the access to MAP technologies, under what conditions should we grant access to selected data concerning gamete donors, how is death defined in the difficult conditions of a potential non heart beating donor, should the presumed consent regime for post mortem donation be revised, and if so how, – The parliament should discuss the law during 2010's first semester, and will have the difficult responsibility to take measures on issues raising medical, scientific, social, philosophical and moral questions.     

L’avis du CCNE no 126 (15 juin 2017) sur les demandes sociétales de recours à l’assistance médicale à la procréation : un pas en avant et deux en arrière…

On June 15, 2017, the National Consultative Ethics Committee released an opinion in favour of the extension of medically assisted procreation (MAP) to lesbian couples and single women. This opinion recommends a reversal of the medical model, which serves as the starting point for the regulatory framework concerning MAP, and expresses its support to social and family evolutions. Nonetheless this liberal and progressive stand could be a mere smokescreen, if it does not result in any meaningful implementation due to practical hindrances; moreover, this seemingly progressive stand could be questioned in view of the conservative position expressed on the issues of surrogacy and oocyte self-preservation by the committee in the same opinion.     

Les techniques biomédicales en matière d’assistance médicale à la procréation conçues dans l’objectif de pallier l’infertilité médicale peuvent-elles évoluer de manière à être utilisées pour remédier à l’infertilité sociale ?

Medically assisted procreation includes techniques that may allow infertile couples to procreate. However, the application of 2011 bioethics law reveals lots of paradox and high-risk behaviors which arouse the question of the relevance and advisable aspect of its opening to all women.