Friday, 12 July 2013
PRESS RELEASE & DECIPHERING
Examination of the draft law referring to the liberalising of research into the embryo ended last night. On tiptoes, during an extra ordinary session and on the eve of the Parliamentary vacation period, the draft law did not get the debating it deserved. The Minister and reporter said nothing, voting was reserved, there were no defenders of the draft law on the Parliament benches: the discussion was broken off although the Parliament is preparing to confirm an upheaval of the law, the right of each human being to be protected from the earliest stage of his or her life (art. of Civil Code).
The opponents to research into the human embryo, whether they are MPs or simple citizens, are justified in their anger at the way the debate was travestied at the National Assembly. After not only refusing to answer the second motion made by the defendants of the current system, the Minister finally decided to use his voting reserve right to eliminate any interest in the slightest examination of its amendments. The immediate result of this unprecedented manoeuvre was the peaceful desertion of the MPs representing the majority.
Adopting total silence and refusing any debate, the Minister refused to answer questions raised several times by the opponents of the draft law on the benches although the questions concerned the basic underpinnings of the discussions in progress:
1. Can the Minister affirm that a human embryo is not a human being?
2. Has the Minister received representatives of the pharmaceutical industry lobbies?
3. If the Minister herself is irate about suspicions levelled at the draft law, which would cater more to the demands of industry than those of patients, why does she refuse to have the law state that recourse to the use of human embryos is reserved for public research teams, as proposed by certain elements?
4. Would liberalising research into the embryo not have an unwanted effect on the clause concerning the conscience of researchers who refuse to destroy human embryos as part of their work?
5. What is the exact budget that France now allocates and that it intends to allocate to research into the iPS cells which are the focal points of credits and human resources in some countries, especially in Japan?
6. How can it dare claim more independence for the Biomedicine Agency while bearing in mind that ABM was picked out by the Paris Initiative Appeals Court for waiving an interdiction into research into the embryo, granted illegally, while other recourse actions are under examination?
7. Can the Minister, who pretended not to understand the question, guarantee that research into the embryo will not be used to improve MAP techniques, and especially the development of the artificial uterus?
The socialist majority has already taken two major steps in this case. It has established standards attacking human life which until now were simply waivers. It stigmatises as if they were enemies, anybody wishing to guarantee the respect of every human hearing from the very beginning of his or her life. The very least that can be said is that in defeating the most fragile among us, this majority has given up every right to legitimacy.
Yesterday, the Jérôme Lejeune Foundation was involved in a scenography staged alongside the National Assembly. The participants brought together by the Un de nous (One of us) (www.undenous.fr) group, symbolised and denounced research using human embryos.