LEGAL REGULATIONS OF ART IN FRENCH LEGISLATION

France is one of the rare countries which implements the fundamental mechanism for improving legislation on Bioethics. Since 1994, every five years bioethics laws are revised in order to follow medical advances (medicine), authorize new practices and impose restrictions, expressly in order to guarantee the fundamental principles laid down by the Law N94-653 of 29 July 1994 (dignity, primacy of the human person, inviolability, integrity and non-ownership of the human body and its elements). Medically assisted procreation (ART) is one of the fields under regular review. This article outlines the French law on ART and surrogacy. In spite of the fact that surrogacy is prohibited in France, the infertile couples seek surrogacy outside of the country. Over the last few years, under pressure from the ECHR and expressly to protect child interests, the French relaxed their position in order to recognize the affiliation of children born from surrogacy. The current revision of bioethical laws aims, among other things, to open up access to ART for all women (including single women and lesbian couples) and to simplify the recognition in France of the affiliation of children born by surrogacy abroad.

What kind of world do we want for tomorrow? The Estates General of Bioethic in France / Quel monde voulons-nous pour demain? Les États généraux de la bioéthique en France

In France, the legislator has planned to organize at regular intervals the Estates General of Bioethics (EGB), an opportunity to inform and question the French people on the subject, and the first step (enshrined in the law) of the regular revision of so-called bioethics laws. The spring 2018 edition is proposed under the heading: “What world do we want for tomorrow?” and schedules a revision of the bioethical laws by the end of 2018. It is organized by the National Consultative Ethics Committee for Health and Life Sciences in connection with all eighteen spaces for regional or interregional ethical reflection (ERER). This contribution reviews the history of bioethical debates and legislation in France, then examines the modalities and themes of the current debate, which is still in progress at the time of writing, before concluding with a somewhat distanced reflection on the complexity of the bioethical debate and the importance of not forgetting its so-called global perspective. ---------- En France, le législateur a prévu d’organiser à intervalles réguliers des États généraux de la bioéthique (EGB), occasion d’informer et d’interroger les Français.es sur le sujet, et première étape (inscrite dans la loi) de la révision à intervalles réguliers des lois dites de bioéthique. L’édition du printemps 2018 est proposée sous la rubrique: «Quel monde voulons-nous pour demain?» et prévoit une révision des lois bioéthiques pour la fin 2018. Elle est organisée par le comité consultatif national d’éthique en lien avec l’ensemble des dix-huit Espaces de réflexion éthique regionaux ou inter- regionaux (ERER). Cette contribution revient sur l’historique des débats et législations bioéthiques en France, puis elle examine les modalités et les thèmes du débat actuel toujours en cours à l’heure où cet article est écrit, avant de conclure avec une réflexion quelque peu distanciée sur la complexité du débat bioéthique et l’importance de ne pas oublier sa perspective dite globale.

The French Parliamentary Guidelines of May 1997: Clarification or Fudge?

In July 1994 three bioethics laws were passed in France which attempted to resolve the moral and legal dilemmas arising from the New Reproductive Technologies (NRTs). A particularly troubling issue for French legislators was the status of the human embryo and its ensuing rights. Was the human embryo a person or a thing? Article 8 of law 94-654 on donation and assisted conception left this unclear, particularly in relation to embryo research. Unfortunately, regulatory decrees published in May 1997 on embryo research and prenatal diagnosis constitute an unsuccessful attempt at further clarification of the issue. Lawyers, clinicians and embryo rights activists alike may justifiably denounce them as a mere fudge.