25 May 2016 No 10/11 ISSN 1664-7963 Current Concerns PO Box CH-8044 Zurich Current Concerns Switzerland The international journal for independent thought, ethical standards, moral responsibility, Phone: +41 44 350 65 50 Fax: +41 44 350 65 51 and for the promotion and respect of public international law, human rights and humanitarian law E-Mail: [email protected] Website: www.currentconcerns.ch English Edition of Zeit-Fragen If I had been supernumerary – I wouldn’t be here today ... No to a barrier-free reproductive medicine by Sylvia Flückiger, member of the National Council, Swiss People’s Party, Canton of Aargau ... and I would not even have been able to which we voted in June 2015. Widespread technically available genetic tests, check- defend myself. Human life is a miracle arbitrary application of Preimplantation ing out all possible genetic defects. In the and a gift, the crowning glory of God’s Genetic Diagnosis (PGD) and controver- future embryos with Down Syndrome creation. We have to be constantly aware sial genetic testing crosses ethical and reg- (Trisomy 21) would thus be discarded of this despite of everything else that we ulatory boundaries. In this way selection and eliminated before transplantation into desire. Life is not disposable and we are of human beings with disabilities would the mother’s womb. This means that they not entitled to freely experiment with and become commonplace. would be sacrificed for arbitrary societal select it. desirability. At the end of December 2015 a broad Diversity instead of selection This would inevitably lead to discrimi- non-party coalition called for a Federal It was the Federal Council’s original in- nation against people with disabilities, be- referendum against the new Reproduc- tention to allow Preimplantation Genetic cause they would thus be considered un- tive Medicine Act with 58,112 valid sig- Diagnosis only for parents with a suspect- desirable and avoidable risks. natures. The new act opens the doors to ed serious hereditary disease. But Parlia- The revised law also stipulates that per a boundless and arbitrary reproductive ment goes much further: each treatment cycle twelve instead of medicine. Parliament has gone beyond The new law allows analysis of all em- the Federal Council’s earlier proposal, on bryos created outside the womb with all continued on page 2 10 reasons for a No to the Reproductive Medicine Act, RMA cc. 11 month ago, after Article 119 para- The endorsement of the revision of this graph 2c of the Federal Constitution had law would fundamentally change our at- been modified and the “reproductive med- titude towards life. For that reason, a icine and genetic technology in humans” strong resistance has been established. within the federal constiution had been re- A non-party committee consisting of 50 adjusted, the Swiss electors will now vote members of Parliament from BDP, CVP, on the law (Reproductive Medicine Act) EDU, EVP, Green Party, SP, and SVP on 5 July 2016, which follows this consti- has amalgamated to the nationwide non- tutional amendment. Certainly, this bill ex- party committee “No to that RMA”. This ceeds the original suggestion by the Feder- committee assesses the new RMA as ex- al Council on behalf of the translation of treme, dangerous and uncontrollable. the constitutional provision by far. Moreover 19 socially engaged organisa- By their campaign, the opponents of tions and among them nearly all handi- this law address the dubious global trend capped-organisations have allied in the towards a reprodutive medicine without committee “Vielfalt statt Selektion – Nein any ethical limit. To name only one ex- zum Gesetz“ (plurality versus selection ample: In Great Britain embryos are al- – No to the law) and further opponents ready genetically modified and embryos in the committee “PID stoppen” (Stop are being produced that possess the ge- PGD). Also the Swiss Episcopal Confer- nomes of three parents. ence (“Im Namen der Menschenwürde In Switzerland, things have not yet gone nein zur Präimplantationsdiagnostik”; as far as that. Nevertheless, the endorse- [In the name of the human dignity no to ment of the RMA would lead to a danger- the PGD] from 26 April) and the Federa- ous establishment of a selection mind-set tion of Swiss Protestant Churches (SEK) clearly. In the following, we publish the that might gradually be extended. Added (“Fortpflanzung um der Kinder willen”; short line of arguments “10 reasons for a to this, the correct usage of the PGD-tech- [Reproductive medicine for the sake of no to the revised FMedG”(source: www. niques in the field is barely manageable. children] from 26 April) reject the law fmedg-nein.ch) 1. The RMA sults which should not be used for selec- procedurally inherent reasons it can no leads to unlimited selection tion. longer be guaranteed that only embryos A genetic test provides all possible infor- Therefore, this technique can and will with features for serious hereditary dis- mation about an embryo (among others lead in time to improper selection. This is also sex). Therefore there are also test re- confirmed by the Federal Council: “From continued on page 2 No 10/11 25 May 2016 Current Concerns Page 2 ”10 reasons for No …” The mania for feasibility must be ethi- needed. In order to win as many egg cells, continued from page 1 cally and legally be contained. What is a women must undertake several treatments no-go today, will be possible tomorrow and are particularly strongly stimulated eases will be eliminated”.1 For reproduc- and declared even as natural the day after hormonally (hyperstimulation). However, tive physicians being faced with numerous tomorrow. hyperstimulation may lead to significant desires, the scope of action is becoming health risks. dangerously wide. The new RMA is also 4. Ethical and constitutional A consequence of the new law would designed in a manner that independent dam break also be an accumulation of thousands of controls are hardly provided and that re- The RMA leads to a fundamental change supernumerary embryos. According to the productive physicians are even able to in dealing with human life. For the first law, the embryos should have to be dis- “control” themselves against payment by time, human life in the initial stage carded after at least 10 years or should be the federal government (Art. 12.4). Should would be evaluated and commercialised. provided for the use in research and phar- the door really be opened to this uncon- Therefore, the rejection of the Reproduc- maceutical industry. trollable technology? tive Medicine Act is not only a matter of human dignity, but also a question of jus- 7. Business with couples’ hope 2. The RMA definitions are extremely tice. Who has the right to say: “Because for a healthy child imprecise and broad you are no ‘Top Embryo’, you cannot go Different studies reveal that the chances to Not only does it allow the PGD for couples on living?” Even the Federal councillor get a healthy child by vitro fertilisation are with a sever genetic disease, it goes much Alain Berset points out that the law has significantly lower, when the embryo has further beyond that, since PGD procedures an eugenic tendency. Do we as a society been checked on chromosomes before- are available for all couples who make use really want to follow this path and engage hand.3 The European Society of Human of in vitro fertilisation (IVF). This can lead us in such a selection mentality? Reproduction and Embryology (ESHRE) to a general test for normality! At no point notes that the positive effect of PGD by you can find the meaning of “recognition 5. Solidarity using Aneuploidy-Screening (chromo- of chromosomal features, which can harm with disabled people at risk some analysis) has not been proven yet. the development of the embryo” (Art. 5a) . If you systematically start to eliminate This doubtful method raises false hopes Who will be the one to decide which fea- embryos, the solidarity with disabled peo- in infertile couples. tures are relevant for a selection? In addi- ple or those who do not meet the social tion, it is nowhere put down which genetic norm is endangered. It is not acceptable 8. Prenatal tests: No basis for diseases are “worthy” for selection. that parents are increasingly susceptible to the unrestricted selection of embryos pressure of justification to do everything The proponents for the new Reproduc- 3. A dangerous development technically feasible to “prevent” a child tive Medicine Act argue that it would be Global trends on the field of reproduc- with a disability or illness. Once people better to test embryos using PGD and to tive medicine augur ill. In Great Britain, with disabilities are perceived as an avoid- weed out, instead of performing an abor- for instance, the Human Fertilisation and able burden of society, refusals by the so- tion later (after a prenatal test, PND). But Embryology Authority (HFEA) has al- cial welfare may be a logical consequence. the PGD process is anything but safe and ready approved of the genetical manip- risk-free. Follow-up exams of IVF chil- ulation of countless embryos. Also em- 6. Countless surplus embryos dren show that these are more prone to bryos with the genome of three parents and risks for women have risks for premature arteriosclerosis, are being produced and inserted. In ad- In order to give birth to a single child by high blood pressure, abnormal heart func- dition to that the list of allowed selection means of a PID process, about 30 embryos tion and rare forms of cancer at a young criteria are being extended by dozens of on average have to be produced according age.4 The physicians for reproductive genetic diseases – also by such that en- to the latest statistics.2 But there is more to medicine rarely inform about these risks.