GESTIÓN EN SALUD PÚBLICA: French ethics committee opposes euthanasia, endorses IVF for all women

French ethics committee opposes euthanasia, endorses IVF for all women

Bioedge

French ethics committee opposes euthanasia, endorses IVF for all women

by Xavier Symons | 30 Sep 2018 |

A peak ethics authority in France has recommended that the prohibition on assisted suicide in the country be retained. The National Consultative Ethics Committee (CCNE) released a report on Tuesday addressing a range of contentious bioethical issues currently under review by the government, including access to assisted reproductive services, egg freezing, gene sequencing, and end-of-life law.

The committee’s report, which comes in the wake of an extensive period of public consultation, states that “no societal consensus” on euthanasia has been reached. It instead recommends that clinicians and the public be educated on extant legislation surrounding palliative sedation, which would ensure a “serene and peaceful” end to life for terminally ill patients with unbearable pain. The report also recommends the provision of palliative care to patients as soon as they are diagnosed with an incurable illness.

The report addresses the question of the provision of assisted reproductive services for single women and women in same sex relationships. It states that all women should have access to donor sperm should they wish to conceive a child. The “suffering” of infertility, even where this is not the result of a biological impediment, “must be taken into account”, the committee said.

The French government stated last year that it intended to change the law to allow all women to conceive via IVF.

Monday, October 1, 2018

It has been a dreadful weekend. On Saturday Collingwood lost the AFL Grand Final to the West Coast Eagles – in the last five minutes. It has taken me a while to get over this. On the brighter side, today the Roosters beat Melbourne Storm convincingly, 21-6, in the Rugby League Grand Final in Sydney. I just thought that our international readers might like to keep in touch with the world’s greatest sports.

These contests are a testimony to the strength and fitness of the athletes. It’s incredible that they can even walk after being buried beneath a mound of other bodies and sustaining a few quiet kicks to the ribs. But they rise, shake themselves and start sprinting around the paddock, begging for more punishment.

In an interesting analysis of American football below (the kind in which they wear helmets and shoulder pads and take four hours to complete a 60-minute game), two kinesiologists ask whether the sport should be considered unethical in the light of the significant injuries sustained by many players.

It’s a problem with all sports, including rugby league and AFL. Basketballers have terrible ankles; rugby union players have become quadriplegics; cricketers have died. They conclude: “Considering all the morally problematic aspects surrounding football, it is worth asking: Is this the kind of social practice around which Americans should imagine and build their national identity?”

What do you think? Should the threat of severe injury be enough to ban a sport? What level of harm is acceptable?

As for myself, I’m playing it safe. I’m sticking with my preferred sport, full-contact origami.