If we consider only medical risk, there is no a priori reason to prohibit the GPA than banning in vitro fertilization pregnancies or from a certain age. Pierre Jouannet also note that "nobody forbids oocyte donation to patients with Turner syndrome, which however makes it more dangerous for pregnant women," citing the case of two patients died in 2007 and 2008. "This can not be an argument for refusing the GPA," he pleads.
The fact that the surrogate consent is not in any way serve as an alibi against the first medical need, ie do no harm
National Consultative Ethics Committee
Questioning about the GPA is indeed a first ethical questions, because, contrary to in vitro fertilization or pregnancy from a certain age, the risk is not taken this time for 'his' child but for that of others. The GPA compares actually rather organ donation, for which French law requires some proportionality in the gift. A person can donate a kidney donation can save if a close ... but no donation can be made for the comfort of a person to the detriment of his own health. Having a child is certainly a major issue but not usually prevents couples to live. Giving nine months of his life can he be compared with being deprived children? And can we forbid someone to make the choice to help someone else? Therein lies the question raised by the CCNE in 2010:
"The fact that the surrogate consent is not in any way serve as an alibi against the first medical need, ie do no harm. Although pregnancy and delivery happen normally, repeated pregnancies and childbirth experience women's bodies and can affect their subsequent health. "
Nevertheless passionate debate well beyond the ethical issues it raises. It is interesting to note that the gift of uterus raises the moment absolutely no condemnation of anti-GPA, even if it involves the same ethical questions, since it is a gift of his body at risk for health and for not maintaining a being alive but to enable him to have a child. Probably because the GPA disrupts the idea of ??filiation "natural", already suffering as many opponents of the GPA by gay marriage and its corollary, adoption for same-sex couples.
The fact that the surrogate consent is not in any way serve as an alibi against the first medical need, ie do no harm
National Consultative Ethics Committee
Questioning about the GPA is indeed a first ethical questions, because, contrary to in vitro fertilization or pregnancy from a certain age, the risk is not taken this time for 'his' child but for that of others. The GPA compares actually rather organ donation, for which French law requires some proportionality in the gift. A person can donate a kidney donation can save if a close ... but no donation can be made for the comfort of a person to the detriment of his own health. Having a child is certainly a major issue but not usually prevents couples to live. Giving nine months of his life can he be compared with being deprived children? And can we forbid someone to make the choice to help someone else? Therein lies the question raised by the CCNE in 2010:
"The fact that the surrogate consent is not in any way serve as an alibi against the first medical need, ie do no harm. Although pregnancy and delivery happen normally, repeated pregnancies and childbirth experience women's bodies and can affect their subsequent health. "
Nevertheless passionate debate well beyond the ethical issues it raises. It is interesting to note that the gift of uterus raises the moment absolutely no condemnation of anti-GPA, even if it involves the same ethical questions, since it is a gift of his body at risk for health and for not maintaining a being alive but to enable him to have a child. Probably because the GPA disrupts the idea of ??filiation "natural", already suffering as many opponents of the GPA by gay marriage and its corollary, adoption for same-sex couples.
No comments:
Post a Comment