European Medically Assisted Reproduction Act - 2019
-
I had no real qualms regarding the original piece of this legislation, so I am pleased to see that the core ideas and concepts from the withdrawn Act are still set to be in place here, albeit with some satisfying compromises. I quite like that the donor registry has been maintained, but that the donors' identity will now be kept anonymous - this is a great balance of maintaining anonymity while making sure that persons born from medically assisted reproduction have access to information regarding hereditary diseases and conditions.
With that said, there may still yet be some back-and-forth on some small details. Natrually, we may yet again see an extended debate on this subject. Nevertheless, this proposal is an improvement of the last one, and I commend the work that Councillor Maverick has put into it.
Also, welcome to the European Council, Councillor Berlanga. We are glad to have you.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
The new text begins with the wording: “Understanding the principle of respect of human dignity, human rights and personal integrity as being the ethical basis of scientific discovery,
Concerned by the hypothetical discriminatory scope genetic modifications to the human gene-pool could take,
Acknowledging the benefits of the application of biotechnology in human medicine, especially concerning the alleviation and eradication of diseases…”But, nonetheless, there is no GENERALLY ACCEPTED LEVEL OR POINT OF ‘HUMAN DIGNITY’ which should be protected or respected, according to diverse philosophical moral and religious conceptions. Not at all.
Because the same text states in II,1.: “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…”Therefore, the Union sees fit and acceptable to limit the potential rights and freedoms of citizens of sovereign States UP TO CERTAIN LIMITS, which are considered “moral” or “adequate” towards human dignity, rights and personal integrity… but then allows each and every State to slander the same rights and freedoms, IF THIS IS MADE PUTTING THEM DOWN. NEVER UP.
In a continuum logic this would be like having limited the research and use of antibiotics when these were on the spot of knowledge and science, because of the potential risks involved in their use, in the name of certain moral or religious conceptions and pretending it was made because of “human dignity”, but then allowing those who wanted a further knot to be put on science to simply BAN ANTIBIOTICS AND ALL RESEARCH ON ANTIBIOTICS.
No, it is not a different situation. We are speaking here of laws and legal discipline, and whatever goes against the logic of law, goes against legal discipline.It is exactly the same situation. Those who sustained this bill argue that they do it in the name of a “highest good” -because it is not politically correct to say that it is stated in the name of a “supreme god”. The result is the same.
As it is, this bill deals with Member States as if they were citizens of a national political body, a State, bound to laws and rules decided by majority. The law and rule now on the table set limits and restrictions, in the name of some “values” -seen by some of the members of the political body, no matter if they are a majority or a minority-, but at the same time allows that everybody subject to the law may decide to “apply further restrictions”… AND NEVER LESS RESTRICTIONS.
Therefore, we are not speaking here of legal instruments, we are speaking of moral dictates.
Last, but not least, we want an explanation to our question put on this forum -but on the previous chapter of his affair: to the affirmation of the representant of Angleter, we would like to be informed where and when the “fourth wall” was broken by me, representative of Sildavia in the EU. I remembered my name, and since when I had been appointed to this function, both according to RL calendar -which seems to apply in the EU forum- and to Sildavian calendar; because both are valid and acceptable. There are regions where a calendar is imposed by their internal rules, but this is not the case of the EU, as long as we are informed. -
(OOC: RL should only be mentioned OOC, not as part of an IC post. I would also say, in my opinion, that categories of the forum such as "application feed" shouldn't be mentioned either IC, nor should the "internal rules" other regions apply. That is where I think @Angleter considered there had been a breach of the fourth wall)
-
@Derecta
About “application feed”: it refers, of course, to the data concerning my country, the one I represent in this Council. The “application feed” is the only place where the Member States of the EU can inform about changes -on an official way, and not as ‘news’- aboiut changes in government parties, Head of State, Head of the Government and EU Councillor. It can’t be done on the official “list of claims”, so it must be done through changing the application form. This is not a ‘breach of IC’, but a necessary way to adapt the data to the real situation , which is that I, Carlos de Kronstadt-y-Setia, am the EU Councillor for Sildavia. We can’t help if usually politicians and representatives last for a longer time in other EU countries. As it is not stated as a duty of Member States, Sildavia follow other ways.
So I insist on not understanding which ‘wall’ was broken. -
Councillor de Kronstatd-y-Setia, how easy it is to connect the will to prevent atrocities from being committed in the field of biotech to an allegedly "politically incorrect" religiousness.
I would like to alleviate your somewhat passionate concerns towards the possible tainting of this proposed Act by ecclesiastical authorities or devout officials by saying that, being an official appointed by a secular state, former Councillor Maverick never had a religious agenda behind the submitting of this proposed Act.
This being said, I believe that it is you, in fact, who is trying to push their own moralistic agenda by slandering about the supposed "moral dictation" that characterises this proposal.I am eager to know, using this continuum logic you refer to, will you contest every Council proposal submitted by the Microstate of Inquista, an effective theocratic ecclesiastical republic, or by the Apostolic Kingdom of Angleter, its official name being self-explanatory in my opinion, or by the Kingdom of Spain, where Catholicism is given a preponderant role in society?
I respect people who believe in religion. I do not share their same metaphysical or theological concerns, but I certainly do not use their faith to undermine their action as Councillors.
I also find it funny that you use a supposed grey area in philosophical and religious conceptions to establish that there is no generally accepted level of human dignity that should be protected. You may be right. But there is a Universal Declaration of Human Rights inscribed in the Constitution of this our Union that defines such human dignity, may you apply the principle of "obedézcase pero no se cumpla" or not.
And I also wanted to comment on this archaic mechanism you refer to. You may not be aware of the fact that Derecta was, for many years, a Hispanic colony. our legal system once employed this mechanism, but I think it is my duty to explain the rest of our fellow Councillors the context of such legal loophole.
"Obedézcase pero no se cumpla", which in English gives an equally ambiguous sentence: "May it be obeyed but not complied with" is a legal principle applied during the Middle Ages in Hispanic-heritage legislation that gives authorities inferior to that of an absolute monarch the power to suspend the executing of a royal decree on the grounds that it would be harmful to its addressees.
I understand the historical reasons behind the creation of such mechanism: parliamentarism was not thoroughly developed yet, devolution of powers to smaller jurisdictional and territorial entities was common and absolute monarchy was the absolute norm. Conflicts between royal decrees and local law were the routine. It implied that "obeying" was to be considered as the recognising of the highest jurisdictional authority present, in that case, the monarch, but that the legislation emanating from such authority may not be effective if it contravened local law.But this mechanism always affected executive, id est royal, provisions. It never could be applied to laws. And, as I have already said so, it resulted in a suspension of said law, and not in its complete dismissal. It was in fact, to be obeyed and complied with, but there was the possibility to argue that it was suspended if breached and prosecuted for such breach, in order to be exempt of guilt.
We respect the fact that this is still part of Sildavian law. What we do not share and effectively condemn is the comparison to an absolute monarch that the Sildavian does of this Council. A Council that, one way or another, is the democratic expression of the peoples of Europe. A Council that is not the executive power of the Union, but its legislative chamber.
Aren't you, Councillor de Kronstadt-y-Setia, a renowned Conservative appointed by a government led by a Socialist-Liberal coalition? Do you think that makes you less of a democratic representative of your nation? Do you think you are a member of an absolutist institution?
I believe that, given the logic that the mechanism which the Empire of Sildavia intends to apply should this Act be approved, there is no legitimacy to the application of such mechanism against this Act, may it become part of Union Law, as it will have emanated from a legitimate legislative chamber.
I would also like to kindly remind that, no matter the tricks and ruses the Empire of Sildavia tries to unfold in order to contravene Union law, its authorities have a legal obligation to "obedecer y cumplir" what this chamber establishes as Union Law.
Finally, I would like to comment on this comparison of our Member States to "citizens of a national political body" made by Councillor de Kronstadt-y-Setia. I find it amusing that my fellow colleague uses this imagery to set forth his argument on the supposed submission of our countries to a big, bad European Union. But what I find most illustrative is that he says that these "citizens" are "bound to laws and rules decided by majority"
I could not agree more with this statement. Thank you, Councillor de Kronstadt-y-Setia, for teaching us member of this Council the meaning of democracy. I wish you yourself and your government accepted this as a fact, and refrained from using unfounded arguments to undermine the legitimacy of this or future proposed Acts by this Council.Thank you.
HE Councillor Guillermo de Berlanga y Prieto,
Republic of Derecta -
@Derecta
On referring to the internal rules of other regions, we, Sildavians, continue to think that our countries are in a planet or world, NS, formed by regions. How could possibly the mention of other regions and their internal rules be “OOC”? Don’t they exist? Is the EU gloriously floating in Outer Space, like another Discwolrd’s A’Tuin of sorts? -
@Sildavia
(OOC: Basicamente, esperamos que no hagas referencia a nada de la vida real, como la equivalencia entre dias/meses/años que utilizas para que progrese el tiempo en Sildavia, ni la estructura del foro, como la famosa lista "application feed" a la que te refieres. Si te fijas, todos los posts de esa lista se hacen fuera de contexto, y no tienen nada que ver con el RP que luego se hace en el resto de entradas del foro. Creo que lo que no se quiere es que se rompa la continuidad del IC, y al mencionar esos aspectos, lo haces. También, te aconsejaría que hicieras una clara distinción entre NS y este foro, como ya he te he recomendado anteriormente. Podemos ser naciones que emanan de esa página, o que se han organizado entre sí a través de una región de NS, pero, en la práctica, hay poca vinculación entre lo que ocurre en NS y este foro. El objetivo de esta página es tomar las bases que nos da NS y desarrollar lo que queremos que sea nuestra nación a través del RP sin las limitaciones impuestas por NS. Además, si te das cuenta, no nos basamos en la existencia de un planeta en el que existan otras regiones para hacer nuestro RP. Es verdad, y esto ocurría con mas frecuencia en el pasado, que hay una categoría dedicada para los posts de miembros de otras regiones de NS en la que pueden subir contenido. Sin embargo, en los casi 3 años que llevo en European Union, nunca he visto RP que involucrase al resto de regiones de NS. Aunque es verdad que, en los útltimos tiempos, se ha querido acercar estos dos aspectos de gameplay (hay una categoría dedicada a un posible futuro consenso de la política general de European Union en temas relativos a la World Assembly, esto aún no se ha implementado, y la distinción entre los dos se sigue aplicando. Creo que, por si no lo habías hecho ya al entrar en este foro, deberías referirte a esta página para mas información: Introduction to the European Union
Sin más, espero que esto te haya esclarecido por qué, al menos yo, pienso que no has respetado el contexto del todo.P.S. Sorry guys for the enormous explanation in Spanish. Although I'm basically a native English speaker, I find that I convey messages better in Spanish, also knowing that Sildavia too is Spanish-speaking.)
-
@Derecta
First, I must correct my illustrious colleague. I’m not and never was a “conservative”, having been since my coming of age (22 years according to Sildavian laws) a member of my country’s neutral association. I was appointed as representative to the EU -and therefore a member ot its Council- by a conservative-liberal coalition government, and I’m serving now under a socialist-liberal coalition government. So much for my “conservative persuasion”.
On the other points, you explain very well the origin of the old form my government has announced to be applied if this bill is adopted. It’s precisely in the name of democracy, the only one we know when referring to civil and political rights, the national one, that we are denouncing a limitation of those rights by a regional decision which goes too far beyond the technical cooperation which demands a union based on diversity.
Because we respect this diversity, we have nothing against other countries’ systems, religions and laws, which we fully respect... but we demand the same respect for ours. Therefore, if Sildavia is supposed to accept the limits and mechanisms foreseen in this bill, why would other countries be able to limit its provisions, even banning medically assisted reproduction, as the bill would allow them to do? The protection of human dignity and human rights would be acceptable only for the banning, but not for a major level of freedom for researchers, medical staff and citizens?
If you propose these limitations, then make them compulsory for all, in both senses (for better or for worst), or there is clearly a total contradiction in the arguments on which this kind of bills are supposed to be based. -
Councillor de Kronstadt-y-Setia, I am sorry for having mistaken your political allegiance. It was of my understanding that you had been appointed by this Conservative-Liberal coalition you mention previously ruled your country, but I ignored the fact that you are an independent.
You point out to the contradiction the right this proposed Act would give to countries currently banning medically assisted reproduction. I, yet again, defend former-Councillor Maverick's intention when proposing this Act and say that we do not intend to establish access to this therapy throughout the Union, but to regulate its application and prevent bioethics from being trodden upon. It is not the Union's mission to establish medically assisted reproduction in its Member States, but what indeed is is the protection of its citizens against danger and injustice
You have repeatedly claimed there is no legitimacy to this Act. Let me show you how there is.
Say unrestricted genetic modifying of, what according to you is not an individual, which we agree with, human zygotes and embryos not yet developing towards the fetal stage is allowed.
Say that the development of these modified, I find it hard how to define them now, "biological entities is also allowed, and that they are implanted in a pregnant-to-be individual.
Now say that the modification of this entity gave it additional advantages in the field of intelligence or physical capabilities than that of natural origin.
Wouldn't you argue that the diversity of the human race would be lost? A diversity that stems from what is commonly known as "genetic roulette", alongside contingent environmental factors? In which way is the diversity of Humanity less precious than this diversity of nations you hold so dearly?We have already warned you, and will not take the softer stance other members of this Council have announced they'll take may this occur, but if the Empire of Sildavia has the audacity to disrespect the European Union, its laws and institutions, the Republic of Derecta will champion the fight against such blatant disregard of the rules that enable our cooperation.
Would you approve of the establishment of internment camps assembling Sildavian citizens in my country because we inscribed a clause in our Constitution stating that they're of an inferior race that should be wiped from the face of the Earth?
Would you approve my country's reneging of Union law that would protect your citizens from such barbary, just because we thought it didn't serve our selfish national interests?
I deeply regret to have had to use such a deplorable example to evidentiate the illegitimacy of the Empire of Sildavia's claims of jurisdictional superiority over Union Law, but it seems that the Sildavian delegation will never be willing to admit that they have to play by the rules we all gave each other, or else fatalities such as the ones I have described could be an everyday matter. -
@Derecta
Apologies accepted concerning the personal matter of my political allegiance.Concerning the “example” you offer -about internment camps- its is absolutely ludicrous and contrary to what we are defending. We are speaking of not limiting rights and freedoms, and you answer with a limitation of rights which would be considered an act of war by each and every sovereign nation.
Sildavia wouldn’t force Derectians to use the medically assisted pregnancy techniques, nor the biotechnological advancements offered by science, no matter if Derectians live in their country or in Sildavia. There is no compulsion on anybody, not even Sildavian citizens, to use them. The law protects the non-decisional third parties against a decision of their parents or legal caretakers (i.e., individuals under 18 years old, because between 18 and 22, minors have legal capacity to decide on medical treatments, among other points); but aside from this, there is no possibility of forcing treatments or tecniques on citizens or foreigners. It is, like all rights, a POSSIBILITY, not a necessity.
Your words, Sir, constitute a menace and a threat against Sildavia. Do as you like. We’ll act in consequence. Sildavia began her history well before the EU was thought, and will still exist with or without the EU. NationStates is a large world. -
@Sildavia
I must take now leave from you all, ladies and gentlemen of this Council, as I have received a summon to leave Europolis and attend a Government Council meeting in Kronstadt. My instructions are also to close for the moment Sildavia’s office in Europolis.
-
I am saddened to hear that my, perhaps unfortunate, analogy has been interpreted by the Sildavian government as a threat. Little do they know about Derecta and Derectans, as we would never tolerate for such horrible acts to be perpetrated anywhere in the world, let alone our own soil.
Now, we didn't mean to compare internment camps to unrestricted applying of biotech in human medicine.
As anyone in this Chamber must already know, in an analogy, the relation between elements is what is compared, not the elements themselves. Put simply it's what A is to B and C is to D that's compared, this relation we wanted to point out being a Member State's disregard towards Union Law.
Nevertheless, I would like to humbly apologise to the people of Sildavia, and in particular to Councillor de Kronstadt-y-Setia, for my poor choice of words, and the using of an example, I reiterate, may have not been worthy to be considered as part of the art of oratory.This is why I personally, not as the Councillor of Derecta, but as a regretful colleague, humbly ask for the Empire of Sildavia to reinstate their representation to the European Union.
-
[OOC]
For the complete avoidance of any doubt, the entirety of this post is out-of-character. I’ll post IC later. I am speaking as myself, the man sitting behind the computer, not as Cllr Cruthin or any of my characters.
This is the basic point of IC and OOC. There is a clear and common-sense division between the universe that our characters inhabit and the real world. Therefore, Cllr de Kronstadt-y-Setia should not be referring to RL, the application feed, the list of claims, the forums, NationStates, the concept of IC, or, for that matter, the community rules of other RP regions.
None of those things exist within the RP universe; like the pages of a book, or the book itself, or the appendix to a book, or other books, don’t normally exist within the universe of a novel. For a character in a novel to start openly referring to “page 274” or “Appendix II” or “the laws of physics are different in Lord of the Rings” is breaking the fourth wall. And so it is with your posts, @Sildavia .
There is always going to be some fuzziness in terms of the RP universe beyond the EU. We can and do borrow from real-world history; we acknowledge that there is a ‘rest of the world’ beyond the boundaries of the map, but for the sake of simplicity we don’t talk about it in-character other than in relatively vague terms. It’s about getting as close as we can to a fictionalised version of the real world, within the limitations inherent to a NationStates-based community.
What is specifically stated in the Introduction thread to which Derecta linked, however, is which threads and forums are IC and which are OOC, how a post in an IC thread can be identified as OOC, and that “RP takes place in an alternate, modern-tech universe with the same physics and technologies as the real life (RL) world, but a different map”.
I’ve been prepared to turn a blind eye to your unique calendar, since I appreciate the amount of effort you’ve put into RPing your nation in different regions and on your own website, over what must be well over a decade now. However, I think you’d do well to reciprocate by being a little more forgiving, in both your IC and OOC posts, of players who lose track of your near-constant character changes. For that matter, I'd appreciate not being chased up for an explanation of my post so brusquely and in such short order.
And moreover, my willingness to overlook breaches of the rules set out in the Introduction thread (which I think is adequately signposted) does not extend much further than that. I’ll continue to turn a blind eye to the calendar, but I’m not going to take the flagrant disregard for the concept of IC and OOC that I’ve seen in this thread. Cllr de Kronstadt-y-Setia is not aware that he’s a character in an online forum RP based on a game called NationStates.
We all have our own idea of what our nations and our characters should be like, but we have to compromise that for the wider RP community to function. I value your participation in the EU, and given that your idea of Sildavia is a lot more time and effort in the making than a new RPer who has decided they want sapient dragons and a population of 4.7 billion or whatever, I’m more than happy to come to a compromise/fudge that allows you to retain things like your unique calendar, and for the rest of us to skirt around those anomalies in a way that allows us not to deal with the fact that they’re anomalies. The question is whether you’re willing to do that too.
-
All comments uttered in this Council chamber since my second address are struck from the Council record. I remind Councillors to keep their discussions to matters that are relevanat to this Act.
I am pre-emptively extending the debate period for a full 72 hours, up until 23:00 GMT July 22nd, 2019.
((OOC: This OOC message will be the last OOC comment in this thread. I will not hesitate to delete any new comment that is made out of character. Angleter has explained the difference between OOC and IC in clear detail, which is much apprecaited. Let's keep the debate moving forward, thanks. Xoxo))
-
I'm very pleased to see the act return in a new form with improvements suggested by various Councillors included. This is the kind of legislative work Europe needs, active not stagnant. This act will have the vote of the Archrepublic, however I wish to proposed three compromise amendments.
AMENDMENT I: Subclause III.6
Only establishments that are specifically authorised to do so may store and import gametes or gonadal tissue. Establishments that store donated gametes or gonadal tissue shall ensure that information on the identity of gametes or gonadal tissue donors is registered and reported to a donor register. Gametes and gonadal tissue shall not be provided for medically assisted reproduction procedures after the death of the donor. Special exemptions may be authorised by Member States on a case by case basis to allow the continued preservation and use for medically assisted reproduction after the death of the donor. Member States must notify the European Biotechnology Advisory Board of each authorisation within 24 hours of it being given; 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 II: Subclause III.12
Only establishments that are authorised pursuant to section III.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 dictateand it is considered medically justifiable. Stored unfertilised eggs and ovarian tissue shall be destroyed if said individual dies. Special exemptions may be authorised by Member States on a case by case basis to allow the continued preservation and use for medically assisted reproduction after the death of the said individual. Member States must notify the European Biotechnology Advisory Board of each authorisation within 24 hours of it being given; 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.The Archrepublic views these amendments as necessary as to allow for partners who wish to have children together still even after the death of one. There are ethical and moral reasonings as to why this should not be allowed, however these vary greatly among the various member states of the European Union. This amendment allows for oversight and the option at least for there to be interventions when deemed necessary. I give the example of recently a Vayinaodic woman who had children with her then deceased husband via medically assisted reproduction and the preservation of his sperm. Oversight is totally necessary to prevent abuse, but whether this act should be allowed should be up to each member state with the EBAB providing regulatory assistance.
Another amendment which I am still mulling over is Subclause III.13, as part of me wishes to strike the act and other part wishes to amend it to be more clear on banning Gainful Surrogacy while still leaving altruistic surrogacy untouched for member states to rule upon. I would like to hear the opinion of other Councillors before I propose such an amendment since I know there was support to strike it previously.
-
I suspect that not everyone who would like to contribute to this Act has had the chance to lay out all their ideas yet, or had proper time to discuss the latest proposed amendments. Thus, I am again extending the debate another 72 hours up until 23:00 GMT July 25th, 2019.
Edward Firoux
Council Speaker and Councillor for Inquista -
We welcome your amendments, Councillor Falk. I believe that they have helped broaden the reach of an otherwise categorical banning of the use of gametes or gonadal tissue from a deceased person for medically assisted reproduction.
However, and as former Councillor Maverick explained to Councillor Rodríguez, the intention of this proposed Act is not to regulate the commercial aspects of medically assisted reproduction but to avoid the bio-ethical concerns these practices may surface.
The same way my predecessor could not condone Councillor Rodríguez's call for a "common front" on the sharing of information pertaining to medically assisted reproduction between Member States, I myself cannot approve of an amendment being submitted with the objective to outlaw Gainful Surrogacy.
Whether there is a transactional basis to surrogacy or not is beyond the scope and intention of this Act. there is one variant of Gainful Surrogacy we believe should be, if not banned, at least discouraged, which is why we worded section III.13 as is.
Some professionals refer to the resorting to surrogacy by women that want to become mothers but do not want to go through the "inconveniences" a pregnancy entails as "social surrogacy" or "designer surrogacy". We know for a fact that, due to socio-economical or professional factors, some women believe that they can't risk getting pregnant, either because that will affect their careers or because, sorry to put it so frivolously, their body shape will be deeply altered to the point they will "no longer be attractive".
To this I say, isn't it a fact that the very existence of this kind of surrogacy does nothing but perpetuate the sexist grounds on which it lays its foundations?
This practice exploits both legal and moral loopholes currently undercutting our efforts to maintain surrogacy in particular as an ethical path towards parenthood.
But, again, I shall not approve the banning of gainful surrogacy. I believe that it would be in the best interest both of the Union and the Councillors that want to see this proposed Act prosper not to sanction the outlawing of an entire market Union-wide, and that here, national prerogative should be applied.
Thus, we propose the striking of section III.13.
May we only clarify that, at the present time, the donation of gamete producing organs and tissue from one individual to another without there being a genetic link between them is currently clinically impossible, thus why we proposed the banning of such transplantations in the same section.
-
The debate has ended. Voting on amendments has begun. Voting on amendments will continueuntil 01:30 GMT July 28th, 2019.
There are THREE proposed amendments. The amendments are as followed:
AMENDMENT I: Subclause III.6
Only establishments that are specifically authorised to do so may store and import gametes or gonadal tissue. Establishments that store donated gametes or gonadal tissue shall ensure that information on the identity of gametes or gonadal tissue donors is registered and reported to a donor register. Gametes and gonadal tissue shall not be provided for medically assisted reproduction procedures after the death of the donor. Special exemptions may be authorised by Member States on a case by case basis to allow the continued preservation and use for medically assisted reproduction after the death of the donor. Member States must notify the European Biotechnology Advisory Board of each authorisation within 24 hours of it being given; 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 II: Subclause III.12
Only establishments that are authorised pursuant to section III.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. Stored unfertilised eggs and ovarian tissue shall be destroyed if said individual dies. Special exemptions may be authorised by Member States on a case by case basis to allow the continued preservation and use for medically assisted reproduction after the death of the said individual. Member States must notify the European Biotechnology Advisory Board of each authorisation within 24 hours of it being given; 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:
13.PROHIBITION AGAINST EGG DONATION AND TRANSPLANTATION OF GAMETE-PRODUCING ORGANS
The donation of oocytes or parts of oocytes by one individual to another is to be the last resort when performing medically assisted reproduction. The transplantation of gamete-producing organs and tissue from one individual to another for the purpose of treating infertility is prohibited. -
We request that our proposal to strike section III.13 also be subject to voting.
-
We vote FOR all amendments.
HE Guillermo de Berlanga y Prieto
Councillor of the Republic of Derecta
