Journal international de bioethique et d'ethique des sciences最新文献

The bioethics bill reflects a paradigm shift in filiation. Indeed, the bill provides for the lifting of donor anonymity at the age of majority of the child born of the donation. However, the legislator does not provide for a specific legal regime qualifying the link between the donor and the child born of the donation. It thus proceeds to a negative qualification of a situation that nevertheless entails important legal consequences. One then wonders about the nature of this relationship and about the potential consequences induced by the lifting of anonymity, consequences that are both legal and social. This article will then make it possible to dissociate the notion of filiation and the progressive emergence of the right of access to one’s origins.

The law on bioethics of 2 August 2021 introduced a number of innovations that have raised many questions for professionals. For the medical teams at assisted reproduction centres, the disappearance of the notion of medical indication represents a real paradigm shift. Should there be limits on access to MAP methods? The legal texts set certain limits. Are these limits related to human physiology, to the benefit-risk ratio or to social or medico-economic considerations? We will discuss the issues of the age at which a person can benefit from PGM, self-preservation of gametes for his or her own benefit, access to the donor’s identity and special interviews with the multidisciplinary team. Finally, the need for clear, objective information will be emphasised, especially as article 4 of the law provides for a public health plan: prevention/public education, information/female and male fertility, which to date has not been mentioned.

The digital transformation of justice is the vector of profound change for the litigant. If it can have advantages (speed, accessibility, efficiency), it also presents risks, whether it is the dehumanization of justice or the risk of a digital divide. The study seeks to highlight all the ambivalence of the digital transition in the light of the diversity of litigants.

The new French bioethical legislation does not introduce any major changes in the area of organ transplantation. It does, however, facilitate the implementation of cross-over donation programs by increasing the number of living donor/recipient pairs eligible to participate in the program. By setting the number of pairs at six, the law is likely to allow this promising transplant program to take off. In order to mitigate the risk of a donor withdrawing and to facilitate the matching, the legislator has chosen to integrate a deceased donor organ to initiate the cross-donation program. This pragmatic choice reflects the hybrid regime of cross-over donation, since the legislator, while reaffirming the attachment to the principles of living donation, borrows from the logic of post-mortem donation.

Organ donation confronts us with the reality of illness, with the horizon of death and with a material effectivity of corporeality, and at the same time it introduces the possibility of a gift of oneself going as far as the materiality of the organ. Such an approach associating donation and access to the body reality leads us to question the relation of the subject to others and to himself on the moral level: up to what point can one give a constitutive element of one’s body in order to care for another? Can the wish to save others surpass the search for individual preservation? Can organ donation be extracted from an economic system? We propose first of all to bring together conceptual elements for thinking about living organ donation, before focusing more specifically on the implications of cross-donation according to the new provisions of the 2021 Bioethics Law.

To what extent does the revised law transcribe new orientations and how will they be applied to take into account the human dimension of those to whom they are addressed? This therefore leads us to meet three perspectives. The first concerns the relationship that man has with science and technology. The second look, to which the reflection on limits leads us, is that of the law, this tracer of borders, which obliges us to exercise our freedom in a responsible way. A third look invites us to define our relationship to the World, as it is and as we are and not just as we want to appear by controlling it. I have, for my part, the certainty that this process of questioning cannot claim to give us in the moment all the answers that we expect from it but that we must have the patience to see how the standard will marry with the present realities. and to come.

The 2021 bioethics law intends mainly to respond to expectations from society, mainly from minorities regarding procreation and little relayed by the “general states of bioethics”. It therefore looks bioethics, at the legislative level, not as a set of safeguards against the evolution of technologicals resources, but as the granting of new rights using these technologies. Beyond procreation, the law also loosens the constraints on the research and organ donation or genetic information. In so doing, it determines new balances between subjective rights and protective orders, which the Constitutional Council did not wish to examine.

Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS) is an incurable neurodegenerative disease that leads some people with the disease to consider medical assistance in dying (MAiD). In this article, we describe how a variety of moral problems can emerge from this particular context and affect the well-being of people with ALS, their loved ones, and their caregivers. As MAiD is framed by specific eligibility criteria, broadening its eligibility is often proposed to address these issues. This critical review of the literature aims to identify moral issues relating to ALS that may persist or arise in the event of such widening. The MEDLINE, EMBASE CINAHL and Web of Science databases were searched using 4 search combinations to capture insights from existing literature on ethics, MAiD and ALS (N=41). A thematic content analysis highlighted 3 contextual categories where moral issues emerge (the experience of the disease, the choice of how to die, and the implementation of MAiD). Two important observations are discussed: 1) there are differences in perspective between stakeholders, which can lead to disagreement, but some similarities of perspective also exist; 2) the widening of MAiD eligibility mainly concerns moral issues related to the choice of how to die, and thus constitutes a partial solution to the problems identified.