European Biotechnology Act - 2019

[California]

That would be something we can get behind.

[Derecta]

@Duxburian-Union

Councillor Greene, I appreciate your input on this proposed Act and would like to address your worries and queries one by one.

While we understand your concerns regarding the establishment of specific age-based restrictions, we agree that each Member State does, in fact, establish the majority threshold at different, although similar, ages. We will support this amendment, if it applies solely to section II.3.

Nevertheless, concerning the 16-year thresholds stated in sections II.24., II.27. and II.31., we would argue they're established merely on the grounds of psychological development. In general, children under the age of 16 (by commonly accepted standards) are only just starting the transition towards adulthood maturity-wise, thus why we believe parent/s' or legal guardian/s' consent must be required before engaging in the practices regulated by these sections.

In addition, we simply cannot believe the Duxburian Union does not, in fact, go by international standards when engaging in communication or collaboration with foreign powers. Whilst we respect and admire the cultural roots of the traditional Duxburian time system, I am sure the conversion of times is not impossible, and when the Duxburian authorities translate this Act, may it be approved, into your autochthonous language, they will manage to do so diligently, even if it has to be done by measuring the smallest comparable unit of time in both systems.
If not, this would imply that the Duxburian Union is willfully completely isolated from most international agreements and organisations, by refusing to adhere to such standards.
Does the Duxburian Union recognise the Constitution of the European Union, in which specific term limits expressed in Gregorian months/years are determined?
If so, then we must admit that the time limits expressed in this proposed Act should also be accepted by the Duxburian Union.

Moving on, I shall explain the motives behind section II.20.

This threshold is based on the particularities of the process of sexual differentiation of human zygotes/embryos/fetuses.
During such process, which begins with the first zygotic cellular divisions and continues well beyond the 12th week of gestation and the beginning of the fetal stage (which starts during the 8th week of gestation), sexual gonads may not be fully identifiable before this 12th week period, in particular concerning male embryos/fetuses. Nevertheless, some distinct characteristics may be observable before the 12th week.

Now, our intention is not to limit or restrain abortion rights, if applicable, in Member States, but there is a relation between this aspect and this section.
After the first trimester, id est 12 weeks, abortion is generally only advised under certain circumstances, such as the existence of a risk to the pregnant individual's life or health, fetal defects or other specific situations that may be related to the circumstances of the conception or the pregnant individual's age.
It is of common scientific belief that abortions before the 12th week should be, in general, unrestrictedly performed.
The reason why we propose that the sex of the embryo/fetus be an unknown to the pregnant individual and their families, if they're involved in the pregnancy, before the 12th week of gestation, unless there is a serious risk for the embryo/fetus to develop a critical sex-linked condition, is because we would like for abortions based on sexist attitudes be, if not eradicated, reduced to the maximum possible.
We simply cannot allow for pregnant individuals to decide to terminate their pregnancies merely on the grounds of rejection towards the sex of their spawn, especially after procedures requiring such hard work as medically assisted reproduction.

Now, regarding section II.22.
If one of the main purposes of this Act, which is, in fact, to impede ill-minded actors from performing unethical genetic modifications to humans, is suppressed on the grounds that we are to ingratiate a determined Duxburian-circumscribed religious current, I believe the whole objective of this Act is fully undermined.
I simply cannot and will not accept that Humanity's common interest, which is to preserve itself and what makes it human, be subordinated to a church's dogma.
How can the Duxburian authorities guarantee that this "simple curiosity" you invoke shall not derive into scientifical atrocities attacking the very core of what makes us humans?
You request a broader scope be given to this section. I say that there is already broad enough a scope to the therapeutical objective allowed by this proposed Act.
I would not like to enter a theological discussion, but what better way to achieve communion with God than to effectively suppress the evil of disease?

Finally, we admit the wording of this Act could be improved regarding the authorisations to be given by the EBAB. Nevertheless, we understand that they would, in fact, apply to a given methodology, and not to individual therapy administered to each patient.
Regarding the speed of said applications and the infrastructure required to deliver authorisations in a swift manner, we would invite you to illuminate the rest of us red-tape-drowned Member States and propose an amendment extrapolating that Duxburian bureaucratical expertise to the EBAB, by bringing forward what your delegation thinks that a personnel/institutional structure should optimally be.

[Derecta]

@Germany

We appreciate your will to reach a middle ground, Councillor Schröder.

[Inquista]

I'm extending the debate for another 48 hours, until 20:30 GMT July 15th.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

[Derecta]

I would like to announce to my fellow Councillors that, due to the recent General Elections celebrated in my country, I shall only remain as acting Councillor for the Republic of Derecta until the passing or dismissal of this Act.

I would like to humbly request that you let us know your respective doubts, concerns and proposals about this Act as soon as possible, as to allow the Derectan authorities to appoint my successor.

Finally, I would like to thank the Council and my fellow Councillors for the kindness and sympathy with which I have been treated ever since I succeded Dame Ricchetti as Derectan Councillor on the occasion of her accession to the Office of Premier Commissioner back in 2017.

Thank you all,

HE Acting Councillor Julian Maverick

[Derecta]

We have just received a cable from the Angleteric delegation asking about the meaning of the word "foraneous" used in section II.10.
As we have realised this was a poor choice of wording, we submit the following amendment:

Replace "foraneous" by third-party

10.USE AND IMPLANTATION OF EMBRYOS
Implantation of embryos into the individuals from whom the oocytes were obtained shall be the preferred course of action. Member States may lay down further regulations relating to implantation of foraneous third-party embryos into an individual’s body after in vitro fertilisation.

[Angleter]

Cllr Hrayr Cruthin, holding a large collection of papers in his hand, stood to speak

The proper management of biotechnology and genetic modification is, in Angleter’s view, an issue with potentially massive cross-border implications, and therefore we consider it entirely reasonable that the Council should seek to legislate on this issue. For that matter, we would welcome an additional Bill at a later stage managing the use of these technologies in non-human life.

We are all sovereign nations, but our ecosystems do not stop at our borders. Angleter is wise to these risks, foreseeable and unforeseeable, and therefore we have very strict limits on gene therapy and on genetic modification in non-human life, in addition to a complete moratorium on IVF that was instituted in 1998. Naturally, we will be seeking an amendment to this Bill to clarify that it does not overturn that moratorium.

Angleter supports the general principles of this Bill, although we have a number of concerns about the text as it stands and would like to support or propose some amendments.

Firstly, we concur with Cllr Schröder’s concerns about subclause II.3. The question of whether a sperm or, for that matter, egg donor’s identity should be revealed to their children is fraught with ethical issues. While I appreciate reassurances that donors will not be left on the hook for child support or suchlike, it’s entirely plausible that a child, upon turning 18, may expect some degree of contact with their biological parents.

Most sperm and egg donors, to my understanding, do not donate with the expectation of fulfilling the duties of a parent, even to an adult child; and I also understand that many sperm donors in particular turn out to be the biological parents of a lot of children. They have, under the provisions of this Bill, no control over who the other biological parent will be, who will parent their biological children, and what the circumstances of those children’s upbringing will be – indeed, not only that, but they have no knowledge.

I know that there are powerful moral arguments on the other side, but I believe this is a debatable enough issue that each member state should be left to decide it for themselves. I would, therefore, support the wholesale removal of subclause II.3, and if Cllr Schröder will not bring forward an amendment to such an effect, then I will.

With respect to subclause II.7, I would suggest that member states should be able to lay down further provisions on sperm banks and suchlike however they want, rather than just by regulations.

In the following subclause, I believe it is important to stress that sex-selective treatment should only be employed if either parent – not just the mother – has been demonstrated in a test to be a carrier of a sex-linked hereditary disease. I think it would be wrong for unscrupulous doctors to get off on the technicality that the mother or father turned out to be a carrier after the fact. Furthermore, the term ‘serious’ warrants more specific definition.

I’m unconvinced as to the value of banning ovary transplants and the like at the European level, and the same for the discouragement of egg donation, and I’ll table an amendment to give the Council an opportunity to decide what course of action to take.

Angleter would welcome the bans on human cloning and the intentional creation of genetically identical individuals. However, we would seek clarification in subclause II.20 to stress that it only applies to IVF cases and not to naturally-conceived unborn children.

I am concerned about subclause II.23 and would suggest that it be rewritten. At present it is unclear whether the member state would need the approval of the EBAB before giving authorisation, or whether it would simply need to notify the EBAB. I would suggest that the proper order of things should be the member state granting authorisation and then notifying the EBAB, which could then have the power to review the decision.

Finally, I concur with Cllr Greene’s point about using the age of majority rather than specific ages.

In closing, I believe this will be an important addition to the corpus of EU law, provided that it is amended appropriately in the coming days. Accordingly, I’d like to table the following amendments, which I believe I’ve explained over the course of my speech.

AMENDMENT I: SUBCLAUSE II.3

3.1 Any person who is born as a result of medically assisted reproduction using donated sperm has a right to information on the sperm donor’s identity at the age of 18. A donor register shall assist the child in this matter.
3.2 Member States shall establish a register of the identity of sperm donors so that children can exercise their rights pursuant to this section.

AMENDMENT II: SUBCLAUSE II.7

Member States may by regulations lay down further provisions on the organisation of sperm banks, the use of donated sperm and the registration and reporting of information on sperm donors.

AMENDMENT III: SUBCLAUSE II.8

Treatment of sperm before fertilisation for the purpose of selecting the sex of the child is only permitted if the pregnant-to-be individual is has tested positive as a carrier of a serious sex-linked hereditary disease that is either life-threatening, severely life-limiting, or associated with severe physical or mental disability.

AMENDMENT IV: SUBCLAUSE II.9

Genetic testing of embryos before implantation into the womb, including tests designed to choose the sex of the child (preimplantation genetic diagnosis) may only be carried out in special cases of serious sex-linked hereditary diseases that are either life-threatening, severely life-limiting, or associated with severe physical or mental disability; and for which no treatment is available. If special considerations so indicate, the European Biotechnology Advisory Board mentioned in section III may emit favourable rulings for genetic testing of embryos. Such permission may be granted for serious hereditary diseases that are either life-threatening, severely life-limiting, or associated with severe physical or mental disability and for which no treatment is available. The embryos selected must not be genetically modified. Before preimplantation genetic diagnosis is carried out, the pregnant individual shall be given genetic counselling and information.

AMENDMENT V: SUBCLAUSE II.13

The donation of oocytes or parts of oocytes by one individual to another is to be discouraged. The transplantation of gamete-producing organs and tissue from one individual to another for the purpose of treating infertility is prohibited.

AMENDMENT VI: SUBCLAUSE II.20

Information on the sex of the a fetus conceived via in vitro fertilisation before the 12th week of pregnancy resulting from prenatal diagnosis or other examination of the fetus shall only be given if the pregnant individual is a carrier of a serious sex-linked disease that is either life-threatening, severely life-limiting, or associated with severe physical or mental disability.

AMENDMENT VII: SUBCLAUSE II.23

Before presymptomatic genetic testing, listed in section I.e), is to be developed, Member States shall give separate authorisations for each disease or predisposition to a disease testing that is to be subject to research and development. Before Member States decide whether authorisation is to be given, the application shall be submitted to the European Biotechnology Advisory Board. Member States must notify the European Biotechnology Advisory Board of each authorisation within 24 hours of it being given; and the European Biotechnology Advisory Board shall have 14 days from the point of notification to decide whether to overrule the authorisation subject to the submission of sufficient additional evidence.

AMENDMENT VIII: SUBCLAUSE II.30

Gene therapy may only be used to treat serious diseases that are either life-threatening, severely life-limiting, or associated with severe physical or mental disability, or to prevent the occurrence of such diseases. Gene therapy on fetuses and embryos and gene therapy that may involve genetic modification of gametes is prohibited.

AMENDMENT IX: NEW SUBCLAUSE BEFORE II.1

(). LEGALITY OF MEDICALLY ASSISTED REPRODUCTION
Member States reserve the right to impose additional regulations and restrictions on the use of medically assisted reproduction within their territory, including with respect to the overall legality of medically assisted reproduction.

[A Former User]

@Angleter said in European Biotechnology Act - 2019:

AMENDMENT IX: NEW SUBCLAUSE BEFORE II.1
(). LEGALITY OF MEDICALLY ASSISTED REPRODUCTION
Member States reserve the right to impose additional regulations and restrictions on the use of medically assisted reproduction within their territory, including with respect to the overall legality of medically assisted reproduction.

Why admit possible “additional regulations and restrictions”, but impose the regulations and restrictions of this bill on ALL EU MEMBER STATES? Is the protection of the civil or moral rights of citizens the reason of this bill, or just a concrete moral or even non-admitted religious Weltanschauung which lays behind it?
Sildavia believes in freedom, freedom also for science and research. In our philosophical, moral and religious system limits and restrictions should only be applied to protect subjects of right, that is, individuals, and reproductive cells or unborn foetuses (while they are not yet viable) are NOT individuals according to our laws. We don’t expect other countries to share this views, and we don’t accept that other countries expect us to accept theirs.

[Derecta]

We would like to submit a friendly amendment to the amendment to section II.20 presented by the Angleteric Councillor. We understand medically assisted reproduction is not only limited to in-vitro fertilisation, and as such the wording of this amendment should reflect so:

AMENDMENT VI: SUBCLAUSE II.20

Information on the sex of the a fetus conceived via in vitro fertilisation medically assisted reproduction before the 12th week of pregnancy resulting from prenatal diagnosis or other examination of the fetus shall only be given if the pregnant individual is a carrier of a serious sex-linked disease that is either life-threatening, severely life-limiting, or associated with severe physical or mental disability.

[Derecta]

We would also like to remind Councillor Cruthin that there have been extensive amendments proposed to section II.3. regarding, amongst others, the question of whether the gamete donor can exercise their right to not want to have contact with their potential genetic offspring.

This is the latest amendment to this section we have proposed:

II.3.THE CHILD’S RIGHT TO INFORMATION ON THE SPERM GAMETES DONOR RIGHTS OF GAMETE DONORS AND CHILDREN BORN BY MEDICALLY ASSISTED REPRODUCTION

3.1. Anonymous gamete donors shall be exempt of any parental, legal or financial responsibility over their possible genetic spawn.

3.1. 3.2. Any person who is born as a result of medically assisted reproduction using donated sperm gametes has a right to information on the sperm gametes donor’s identity at the age of 18. A donor register shall assist the child in this matter.

3.2. 3.3. Member States shall establish a register of the identity of sperm gametes donors so that children can exercise their rights pursuant to this section.

3.3. 3.4. Gametes donors shall be able to state their refusal to become acquainted in person with their genetic spawn, thus restricting said spawn's access solely to their medical information, regarding in particular hereditary diseases unknown of or not fully disclosed during the donation of genetic material by the donor, without prejudice to the right established in section II.3.1. II.3.2.

Section II.3.4 specifically states that the gametes donor can restrict the access of their spawn to their medical information, and nothing more. I understand the concerns that you share with Councillor Schröder, but these children have to have a way to determine if a condition they suffer from is hereditary-based, and such condition may have not been properly screened during the time of the donation, either due to human error or to the unavailability of methods to screen said condition at the time.

This is why I call for the permanence of section II.3.

[Vayinaod]

Firstly, it is great to see the Council seeing debate and working towards some form of law on this topic rather than just throwing it on the ash heap of history. I would like to thank Cllr. Maverick for his service to this council, and for this act specifically. I had both of my children with my partner through IVF so this topic is of a personal nature to me.

Secondly, with the original proposed act the Archrepublic stood opposed, however with the amendments proposed by the various Councillors, I can gladly throw support behind the act. That said, there remains some amendments that I would like to propose, namely on the EBAB, as well as specific sections we would like struck.

On the EBAB, Vayinaod stands opposed to handing over the regulatory authority of the medical applications to a regional authority, Cllr. Cruthin's amendments thankfully amend that concern in one section. But we would prefer to add additional amendments to other sections using the wording provided by Cllr. Cruthin:

Amendment I: SUBCLAUSE II.9

Genetic testing of embryos before implantation into the womb, including tests designed to choose the sex of the child (preimplantation genetic diagnosis) may only be carried out in special cases of serious sex-linked hereditary diseases that are either life-threatening, severely life-limiting, or associated with severe physical or mental disability; and for which no treatment is available. If special considerations so indicate, the European Biotechnology Advisory Board mentioned in section III may emit favourable rulings for genetic testing of embryos. Such permission may be granted for serious hereditary diseases that are either life-threatening, severely life-limiting, or associated with severe physical or mental disability and for which no treatment is available. The embryos selected must not be genetically modified. Before preimplantation genetic diagnosis is carried out, the pregnant individual shall be given genetic counselling and information.

Amendment II: SUBCLAUSE II,14.
Methods of treatment that come within the scope of article I, the storage and import of sperm, cf. section II.6, treatment of sperm, cf. section II.8, and the storage of embryos and unfertilised oocytes and ovarian tissue, cf. sections II.11 and II.12, shall be authorised by Member States, and may only be used or carried out by establishments that are authorised pursuant to section II.33. Before Member States decide whether authorisation is to be given, the application shall be submitted to the European Biotechnology Advisory Board. Member States must notify the European Biotechnology Advisory Board of each authorisation within 24 hours of it being given; and the European Biotechnology Advisory Board shall have 14 days from the point of notification to decide whether to overrule the authorisation subject to the submission of sufficient additional evidence.

Amendment III: SUBCLAUSE II.17
Methods of examination that come within the scope of section 1.d) shall be authorised by Member States. Before Member States decide whether authorisation is to be given, the application shall be submitted to the European Biotechnology Advisory Board.Member States must notify the European Biotechnology Advisory Board of each authorisation within 24 hours of it being given; and the European Biotechnology Advisory Board shall have 14 days from the point of notification to decide whether to overrule the authorisation subject to the submission of sufficient additional evidence.

Amendment IV: SUBCLAUSE II.27
Presymptomatic genetic testing shall not be carried out on children under the age of 16 unless the test can detect a condition for which treatment may prevent or reduce damage to a child’s health. Member States may in special cases grant exemptions from this prohibition, following consulting of the European Biotechnology Advisory Board.Member States must notify the European Biotechnology Advisory Board of each authorisation within 24 hours of it being given; and the European Biotechnology Advisory Board shall have 14 days from the point of notification to decide whether to overrule the authorisation subject to the submission of sufficient additional evidence.

Amendment V: SUBCLAUSE II.31
Methods of treatment that come within the scope of section I.g), shall be authorised by Member States. Member States may lay down regulations relating to administrative procedures. Before Member States decide whether authorisation is to be given, the application shall be submitted to the European Biotechnology Advisory Board.Member States must notify the European Biotechnology Advisory Board of each authorisation within 24 hours of it being given; and the European Biotechnology Advisory Board shall have 14 days from the point of notification to decide whether to overrule the authorisation subject to the submission of sufficient additional evidence.

That sums up the amendments of how the EBAB should be acting, advisory as its name suggests. These procedures relate to individual citizens, who are best served by their respective national agencies that deal with approving these sort of procedures. Each nation facing different ethical, logistical, religious, and scientific reasoning surrounding their regulations and beliefs on this topic. We believe the EBAB should remain completely separate from the Council, and that no term limits should be present, rather that member-states directly appoint their representative to the Board and remove them as they see fit or as the EBAB rules on sitting members.

Amendment VI: SUBCLAUSE III
1.APPOINTING OF MEMBERS
The Council Member States of the European Union will appoint a board that on request or on its own initiative can give opinions on matters that come within the scope of this Act and other questions relating to biotechnology. The opinions of the board are public unless otherwise required by the statutory duty of confidentiality. The Council may lay down further provisions on the board’s activities. This board will fall under the scope of the Commission for Internal Affairs. The Commission for Internal Affairs will immediately set forth in establishing this board with assistance from Member States following the passage of this act.

2.DURATION OF TENURES
The EBAB will be appointed by the Council for two-year tenures. The board’s decisions are not subject to appeal. EBAB sitting members shall not face a term limit as imposed in this provision, however Member States may remove their representative as they see fit. Representatives may also be removed by a super-majority vote of the EBAB's sitting members as defined by in the European Constitution. The board's decisions may appealed one year after decisions have been reached provided new information is brought to light. The EBAB itself may vote to review former decisions early.

3.COMPOSITION OF THE BOARD
The EBAB shall be composed of one appointed representative per Member State from any method of the Member State's choosing, relating to the domain of biotechnology.

Vayinaod would also like to see amendments to Subclause II.6 and Subclause II.12 specifically the portions referring to the destruction of organic materials after the death of an individual. Many couples save these organic materials in the hopes of procreating even after an untimely death through Surrogacy. This is not a matter for the Union to legislate on. This is a consentual choice between two people in love and the Arch-Republic would like to see these provisions stricken.

Amendment VII: SUBCLAUSE.6
Only establishments that are specifically authorised to do so may store and import sperm. Establishments that store donated sperm shall ensure that information on the identity of sperm donors is registered and reported to a donor register. Sperm shall not be provided for medically assisted reproduction procedures after the death of donors who sought to be antonymous.

Amendment VIII: SUBCLAUSE II.12
Only establishments that are authorised pursuant to section II.33 to carry out medically assisted reproduction techniques may after authorisation store unfertilised oocytes and ovarian tissue. Unfertilised oocytes and ovarian tissue may only be stored if the conditions relating to medically assisted reproduction set out in this Act have been fulfilled or if an individual is to undergo treatment that may impair their fertility. Stored unfertilised oocytes and ovarian tissue may only be kept for as long as the interests of the individual from whom they were taken so dictate and it is considered medically justifiable. Stored unfertilised eggs and ovarian tissue shall be destroyed handled according to the wishes of the said individual if they die.

Finally, we would like to see an amendment to Subclause II.5, only because we believe that physicians should only assist in the selection of a suitable sperm donors, and not be the final selector as that consent should remain with the individual seeking treatment.
Amendment IX: SUBCLAUSE II.5
The physician who is providing the treatment shall assist in selecting select a suitable sperm donor. The establishment that carries out the medically assisted reproduction procedure shall ensure that the necessary information on the procedure is registered and reported.

That is all the amendments we would like to propose at the moment.

[Angleter]

@Derecta said in European Biotechnology Act - 2019:

We would like to submit a friendly amendment to the amendment to section II.20 presented by the Angleteric Councillor. We understand medically assisted reproduction is not only limited to in-vitro fertilisation, and as such the wording of this amendment should reflect so:

AMENDMENT VI: SUBCLAUSE II.20

Information on the sex of the a fetus conceived via in vitro fertilisation medically assisted reproduction before the 12th week of pregnancy resulting from prenatal diagnosis or other examination of the fetus shall only be given if the pregnant individual is a carrier of a serious sex-linked disease that is either life-threatening, severely life-limiting, or associated with severe physical or mental disability.

I accept this change to my amendment.

[Derecta]

Thank you, Councillor Falk, for your kind words.
Now, I believe that the amendments you have proposed are indeed quite reasonable and that my initial proposal, in particular regarding the powers of the EBAB, may have been a bit too overreaching.

However, I must disagree with your proposal to amend sections II.6 and II.12.
The same way we believe section II.3 is a failsafe against unknown-at-the-time genetic-based hereditary diseases, we wholeheartedly affirm these sections fulfil the same objective.
We simply cannot allow for gametes or gonadal tissue/organs to be used in such procedures if the individual from which they were harvested has deceased.
Doing so would not only, in my opinion, breach certain ethical principles, but it would be, as I have reiteratedly expressed, a medical risk. We cannot expose children born from medically-assisted reproduction to genetic-based disease, because we would become, in a way, responsible for this exposure.

Now, this proposed Act's scope, as you may have noticed, uses fairly generic vocabulary when referring to people. We have preferred to use the term "individual" instead of "man" or woman", denoting our will to abstract this proposed Act from the stereotypical cisgender heterosexual constructs that characterise pregnancy.
We have also opened the door, or more correctly, not put restrictions, to individuals who want to pursue medically-assisted reproduction without being part of a couple in other sections, such as giving one parent or one legal guardian, in the absence of two during the conceiving of the child/children, the right over consent of the different practices defined through this proposed Act .

Nevertheless, I believe personal relations and emotions should not become part of how this proposed Act lays down its provisions.
I am sorry to say, and would not want to seem as if I regarded your contribution to this Act or your rights and duties as Councillor of your state as unworthy, but we respectfully request you withdraw those two amendments, on the grounds of medical ethics and the reasons we have already explained.
I myself will probably never be able to put myself in the shoes of such couples facing these adversities during their journey towards parenthood.
However, I believe that with regards to this particular matter, they should not be clouded by grief or despair when their significant other passes away, and that they should make the best decision towards the health and well-being of their possible offspring.
So, let me just say that, while I deeply appreciate your constructive attitude towards this somewhat flawed proposed Act, I cannot support this last amendment.

Finally, I have been instructed by the Prime Minister of the Republic of Derecta, Her Grace The Most Honourable Cayetana Valcárcel-Aranjuez y Pérez de Viñastre, Duchess of Athenaesios, to announce in this session of the Council our nation's deep distress towards the latest constitutional amendment passed in the Empire of Sildavia which, under the form of a preliminary title states that, quote, "All legal and political rules and acts, be they domestic or international, will be under the ruling of the present Constitution, Supreme Law of the Empire of Sildavia.".

We would like to remind the Sildavian delegation that, at the moment of their accession to the European Union, which required their acceptance and recognition of our Acquis communautaire, they subscribed to the European Constitution.
A Constitution which, in Article I, Section I, Subclause VIII, clearly states that, quote, "Member states of the European Union retain absolute sovereignty over their own affairs, except where provided by this Constitution and by legislation passed by the European Council that is not in conflict with this Constitution."

Failure to comply with Union Law, be it this Act if accepted by the Honourable Members of this Council, or any other previously-passed Act, on the grounds of disconformity with Sildavian law, will constitute, to our nation's understanding, a grief disregard towards the institutions of the European Union on behalf of the Sildavian authorities, and as such, we will be the first to move for the prosecuting of such practices.

In addition, the Government of the Republic of Derecta has already initiated a round of contacts with the Sildavian diplomatic officials in our country, where our intentions to impose economic sanctions on the Empire of Sildavia, may its authorities decline to comply with Union law, will be expressed.

[Angleter]

((OOC: Yes, this is a bit late, but my computer was broken for most of the day))

I recognise Cllr Maverick's willingness to compromise on subclause II.3, and I acknowledge the importance that the medical records of the child's biological parents are available, at least to any medical professionals treating the child.

I'd suggest, however, that the amendment that Cllr Maverick is currently proposing could be construed in multiple ways. It states first that the child has a 'right' to information on the donor's identity, and only afterwards that the donor can refuse contact with the child, and restrict their access to their medical information only. For one, those are two different things – you could, in theory, refuse contact without withholding any further information. Secondly, it could be read in such a way that the child can first access the donor's identity, and only then, perhaps if the child intends to make contact, can the donor say no. That could throw up all kinds of problems, but I could easily see it being the interpretation made by some governments and some courts, not least given the order of the provisions and the fact that the word 'right' is used to describe a child's ability to access the donor's identity, but not the donor's ability to refuse contact or make any further restrictions.

I would propose, therefore, an amendment to rewrite subclause II.3 to make it focus on establishing a minimum level of access to the donor's medical records, like thus:

AMENDMENT X: SUBCLAUSE II.3

3.1 Any person who is born as a result of medically assisted reproduction using donated sperm has a right to information on the sperm donor’s identity at the age of 18. A donor register shall assist the child in this matter.
3.2 Member States shall establish a register of the identity of sperm donors so that children can exercise their rights pursuant to this section.
Medical professionals responsible for the care or treatment of a person born as a result of medically assisted reproduction shall be able to access anonymised medical information, particularly with respect to hereditary diseases and genetic conditions, about the gamete donors. Member states shall establish a registry of the identity and medical records of gamete donors in order to facilitate this access.

I would therefore like to withdraw my Amendment I.

---

I'd now like to turn my attention to the comments of the Councillor from Sildavia. I am sure that Cllr dea Arabiya-Rom can appreciate that medically assisted reproduction, as with all areas of biotechnology, can lead to grave, potentially unintended consequences; and these consequences can cross borders.

What this legislation does, in my view, is create a common baseline of good practice, most of which I hope and expect most European nations would already be following. The rest of the region cannot be left carrying the can when an experiment goes badly wrong in a country that decided against meeting this baseline.

If Sildavia wishes to ignore this Bill should it become legislation, then it's welcome to do so. We won't be pursuing a case in the ECoJ. But they can expect no sympathy or solidarity from us if their decision should lead to negative consequences for them. We would expect recompense if their decision should lead to negative consequences for us. And, in order to prevent the latter from happening, we will have to consider what relevant, common-sense measures can be taken to help protect Angleter against any potential excesses in the Sildavian biotechnology sector.

Perhaps it would be more productive for Cllr dea Arabiya-Rom to explain which specific aspects of the Bill she finds to be an overreach?

[Derecta]

Councillor Cruthin, we believe that Mrs. dea Arabiya-Rom is in fact no longer the Sildavian Councillor, and that Councillor de Kronstadt-y-Setia is currently representing the country. We would want to open a discussion on this particular issue, but on a different occasion than that of the considering of this Act

We would also like to request that the Speaker grant us permission to table this proposed Act, as to resubmit it in the following days.
We shall analyse the various Amendments proposed by our fellow Councillors and implement those that we think will benefit it the best.
We believe this will help with the future considering of the Act as a whole, as during this period of submitting of amendments things have gotten quite complex.

Thank you all for your cooperation on this capital issue.

Councillor de Berlanga y Prieto shall be submitting the revised form of this proposed Act should the Speaker give us his approval to table it.

So I guess this is farewell now. Thank you, my friends, for these wonderful two years in Europolis.

Julian Maverick

[Inquista]

We eagerly hope to see this Act revisited once it has been revised, Councillor Maverick. Again, thank you for your contributions to the European Union, and we wish you well in your future endeavors.

I am glad to have witnessed such an extraordinarily constructive Council discussion... let's keep this up!

This proposal has been officially withdrawn.

Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista

[A Former User]

Indeed, I am Carlos de Kronstadt-y-Setia, Councillor of Sildavia in the European Union, since more than a year ago (Sildavian time), over a week ago in RL. It was stated in both the “application feed”, as well as in the news consortium. By the way, there is a new government in Sildavia since two months ago -Sildavia time-, since 14 July RL. There is a new Chancellor, as stated both in the application feed and the news consortium.

Regarding the future of this bill, Sildavia has stated that it goes far beyond what the common interests of the Union stand for. The new government made an official consultation to the Imperial Supreme Court and the answer was clear: it would consider its application as contrary to the Constitution of Sildavia, because researchers, medical staff and individuals would be submitted to a foreign board, whose decision on what is considered ‘moral’ or not, ‘dangerous’ or not, would be tainted with ideological and a-prioristic considerations, which could have no value in Sildavia. This would mean a restriction of their constitutional rights, and the Constitution is, according to this interpretation, the Supreme Law in Sildavia, to which all other legal instruments -including international treaties and agreements- must be subordinated within Sildavian borders.
The Court, however, stated that this interpretation would be even stronger if the political bodies would state it in written in the constitutional text. Therefore the government opened the procedure of constitutional reform, to add a Preliminary Title which would state this supremacy. The bill was passed unanimously by both chambers of Parliament and ratified in referendum by 89% of the vote. As it was informed in the news consortium, it is now in force.

Sildavia can’t accept that the constitutional rights of its citizens, corporations and institutions could be limited through reasons and argumentations based on philosophical or religious conceptions. We will not accept this kind of “regional government” which goes far beyond the needs of technical and practical coordination, as if we were subjects of a common political body like individual citizens are, and not sovereign nations acting in international bodies.

My government mandates me to make this announce: if this bill is adopted, Sildavia has the intention to apply a centuries-old mechanism, which was applied by the ancestors of the inhabitants of the county of Castilla, in the Federated Kingdom of Iberia, in their old motherland. When the King of the day promulgated a decree with which the towns of the realm didn’t agree, the local herald took a copy of the said decree to the main square, announced its promulgation, put the document on his head, and announced: “the Town Council orders that this text should be obeyed, but will not be complied with. OBEDEZCASE, PERO NO SE CUMPLA”.

[Angleter]

((OOC: I'll just gently point out, @Sildavia, that your post not so much breaks the fourth wall as smashes through it. Also if you could indicate to me in future when you edit your post in the application thread, since I'm not going to repeatedly go back to it unprompted to check if anything's changed. I shan't respond to the post IC since the debate on this iteration of the Bill is over.))

[A Former User]

@Angleter Kindly inform us where and when the “fourth wall” has been broken.