VIEWS: 35 PAGES: 16 CATEGORY: Business POSTED ON: 3/30/2010
THE EMBRYO AS A LEGAL ENTITY-WOMAN AS A FETAL ENVIRONMENT THE NEW
THE EMBRYO AS A LEGAL ENTITY-WOMAN AS A FETAL ENVIRONMENT THE NEW
THE EMBRYO AS A LEGAL ENTITY-WOMAN AS A FETAL ENVIRONMENT. THE NEW GERMAN LAWS ON REPRODUCTIVE ENGINEERING AND EMBRYO RESEARCH ANNE WALDSCHMIDT Elsa Brandströmstr. 33a, D – 5300 Bonn 3, Germany Synopsis—At the beginning of 1991 a new law on the protection of embryos came into force in Germany. Although this Embryo Protection Law claims to prevent the abuse of reproductive engineering, it allows medical practitioners and researchers ample scope to continue their work unhindered. The refusal to set up statutory control and supervisory bodies means there are no effective restrictions on activities of this kind. The law relates exclusively to the Criminal Code and applies predominantly to doctors and scientists. It is based on an all-embracing concept of the embryo that implicitly devalues the concept of woman, on an uncritical understanding of the role and function of the doctor, and on the articles of the Constitution regarding the preservation of human dignity, the right to life, and physical inviolability. It focuses exclusively on the protection of the embryo and the well-being of the child. As far as women are concerned, the new law is nothing but bad news. It disregards women’s basic rights and human dignity and degrades women to the status of a fetal environment. There was no effective opposition to the bill in parliament. Die Grünen/Bündnis 90 (the Greens/Alliance 90) rejected the bill outright and were the only parliamentary group to put forward feminist arguments, but they hardly gained a hearing. The social democratic opposition took an opportunistic stand by affirming reproductive engineering in principle, agreeing with the ruling conservative and liberal parties on central issues and merely demanding a few additional regulations in a bill of their own. At almost the same time as the Embryo Protection Law, another law passed through parliament guaranteeing that the costs of artificial fertilization would be borne by the public health scheme. Thus, decisive steps have been taken to ensure the widespread application and acceptance of reproductive engineering in Germany. Synopsis—Anfang 1991 ist in Deutschland ein neues Gesetz zum Schutze von Embryonen in Kraft getreten. Dieses Embryonenschutzgesetz gibt zwar vor, die mi bräuchliche Anwendung der Fortpflanzungstechniken zu verhindern, doch der Medizin und Forschung bleiben für die ungehin- derte Fortsetzung ihrer Praxis gro e Freiräume. Durch den Verzicht auf gesetzliche Kontroll- und Uberwachungsinstanzen sind ihnen keine wirksamen Grenzen gesetzt worden. Das Gesetz bedient sich auch ausschlie 1ich des Strafrechtes und hat als Normadressaten überwiegend ÄrztInnen und NaturwissenschaftlerInnen im Blickfeld. Ausgehend von einem umfassenden Begriff vom Embryo, der ein abwertendes Frauenbild impliziert, einem unkritischen Verständnis der ärztlichen Rolle und Funktion sowie den verfassungsrechtlichen Bestimmungen der Wahrung der Menschenwürde und des Rechtes auf Leben und körperliche Unversehrtheit hebt das Gesetz ausschlie 1ich auf den Schutz des Embryos und des Kindeswohls ab. Den Frauen allerdings bringt das neue Gesetz nichts Gutes. Sie werden zum fötalen Umfeld degradiert, unter Mi achtung ihrer Grundrechte und Mens- chenwürde. Im Parlament erfuhr das Gesetzesvorhaben keinen wirksamen Widerstand. Zwar lehnte die Fraktion Die Grünen/Bündnis 90, die als einzige Fraktion feministische Argumente vertrat, das Gesetz eindeutig ab, konnte sich aber kaum Gehör verschaffen. Die sozialdemokratische Opposi- tionsfraktion nahm eine opportunistische Haltung ein, indem sie die Reproduktionstechniken grundsätzlich bejahte, in zentralen Punkten mit den konservativen und liberalen Regierungsfraktionen konform ging und nur in einem eigenen Gesetzentwurf einige umfassendere Regelungen forderte. Fast zeitgleich mit dem Embryonenschutzgesetz passierte 1990 ein Gesetz, das die Finanzierung der künstlichen Befruchtung über das öffentliche Gesundheitswesen garantiert, die parlamentarischen Gremien. Mit den neuen gesetzlichen Regelungen sind entscheidende Schritte vollzogen worden, um Ausbreitung und Akzeptanz der Fortpflanzungstechniken und Embryo-nenforschung in Deutschland zu sichern. Translated by Helen Petzold. 210 ANNE WALDSCHMIDT It came into force on January 1, 1991: words of the Federal Minister for Justice the new German law to protect embryos, who formulated the law, designed to the Embryo Protection Law. In the public “effectively (counter) wrongful debate since 1986, brought before manipulation of nascent life and the parliament by the Federal Government in nightmare prospect of selective human October 1989, and, following a fairly breeding” (Report, 1989, p. 1). However, lengthy committee stage, finally passed in because the Federal Government and the Autumn 1990 (just before the last General ruling parties accept reproductive Election), it has now become legal reality engineering in principle, this noble claim at last. The Pro-Lifers can cheer and jump is not worth the paper it is written on. In for joy; the medical and research lobbies view of the enormous risks of this will have to twist the statutes to their taste technology, particularly to women and and push for amendments to be made as children, and in view of the many still- soon as possible. And we women? The unsolved legal problems it has raised, the new law brings nothing but bad news as law that has now been enacted cannot be far as women are concerned. From now on described as anything other than totally women are confronted with an extremely inadequate and full of loopholes. extensive definition of the embryo; they True to the lawcourt maxim, “If it’s not themselves remain the objects of medical prohibited (by law), it’s allowed,” the practices that blatantly disregard their current version of the Embryo Protection rights to physical inviolability and human Law1 continues to condone the following dignity. activities: heterologous, quasi- The aim of this article is to explain and homologous and homologous fertilization, critically examine the main provisions of that is, artificial insemination by husband, the new law from a feminist point of view. by partner, or by donor; artificial A summary of the positions and insemination for single women and arguments put forward by the two lesbian partnerships;2 eugenic selection of opposition parties represented in the sperm donors; sperm quality tests as well Federal German Parliament at the time as the setting up of sperm banks; the (the Social Democratic Party [SPD] and application of artificial insemination and The Greens/Alliance [Grünen/Bündnis] embryo transfer without medical grounds; 90) serves to illustrate the range of research on gametes, gamete cell lines, opinion expressed within the and nonviable and dead embryos; and, parliamentary debate. Reference is also finally, the freezing of gametes, pronuclei, made to another law that was passed in and embryos. 1990 and largely escaped public notice. In Moreover, the law still remains providing for the costs of in vitro obscure with regard to a number of other fertilization (IVF) to be borne by the areas closely linked to reproductive statutory health insurance scheme it will medicine, such as the analysis of genetic play a decisive role in establishing and material and its many different promoting reproductive engineering in applications,3 socalled somatic genetic Germany. The article concludes with an therapy, that is, genetic surgery on assessment of the current controls on humans, and germ line therapy. 4 What reproductive engineering in Germany as then is the true essence of this new formulated in the above-mentioned laws. law that has been described as the “most restrictive bundle of regulations THE EMBRYO PROTECTION LAW: on embryo research in the world” (die FULL OF LOOPHOLES, FULL OF tageszeitung, 1990)? IDEOLOGY The new law evidently espouses the logic of minimal surgery, for it merely The new Embryo Protection Law is based bans ion of pronuclei and embryos for purely on the Criminal Code and, in the r e s e a r c h purposes; experimentation on New German Laws on Reproductive Engineering 211 “surplus” and “developable” embryos; the only necessary to calm the public. And it utilization of embryos for third-party is totally in keeping with this line of interests (such as commercial trading, reasoning that the law introduces a saving industrial uses, and research); pre- clause for medical practitioners. Artificial implantation diagnosis; cloning; chimera insemination may only be carried out by and hybrid production; and, finally – doctors (§ 9 Embryo Protection Law). In albeit with gaping loopholes – surrogate other words, the very people who are mother-hood and sperm sex preselection. supposed to be restricted by law are The law says nothing at all about how simultaneously granted a monopoly on observance of these regulations is to be performing the practices under restriction. monitored, controlled, or enforced. The This really is setting a thief to catch a sole aim is to prevent acts of abuse on the thief! The justification for this clause is part of doctors and scientists. All others proof of an (intentionally?) naive involved (such as surrogate mothers, assessment of the role of the doctor. donors, contractors, patients, and Reference is made to “scientifically intermediate agents) are not liable to founded medical knowledge,” to a “full punishment. Penalties range from prison diagnosis of the cause of sterility,” to sentences of 1 to 5 years or, alternatively, doctors conducting “a very thorough fines. Medical practitioners can thus count interview with the couple informing them on getting off lightly, especially for a first of possible alternatives as well as of all offence. The imposition of prison the consequences and risks” (Bundestags- sentences without probation would only Drucksache 11/8057, p. 17). The ever come into question for persistent implication underlying these formulations repeat offenders in particularly severe is that doctors actually work this way in cases. practice. If only that were the case! The However, it is extremely unlikely that experiences of women who have anyone will in fact ever be convicted for a participated in IVF programmes prove the criminal offence under the Embryo contrary. In addition to this, the vital Protection Law. Criminal practices can be public debate is “elegantly” side-stepped detected and exposed by those inside the by including a “voluntary clause”,5 that is, profession, which means that the scientists no doctor can be compelled to give these and research staff employed in medical treatments. Reproductive technologies are research and hospitals would have to thus first and foremost declared a doctor’s supervise each other. But who’s going to problem and then reduced even further to risk his or her career by reporting become an ethical dilemma confronting violations of the Embryo Protection Law? some of them. Even if charges are brought, in most cases The overriding theme of the Embryo prosecution will have no chance of Protection Law is the protection of human success for it would prove extremely dignity constitutionally guaranteed in the difficult, if not impossible, to provide German Basic Law. Yet the only entity evidence in the laboratories. that is mentioned in the Embryo According to the writers of the new Protection Law as deserving protection is law, it is by no means “an expression of the embryo. The fact that women’s basic distrust in any particular professional rights may be violated is given no group,” it has been introduced on the consideration whatsoever. In this, the new understanding “that, in general, scientists law is in complete harmony with the as well as medical practitioners (are) current legal debate on reproductive aware of the responsibility they bear engineering and abortion, in which towards human life” (Report, 1989, p. 3). women and their human dignity simply do They obviously have complete faith in not exist. The discussion on the doctors’ and researchers’ sense of beginning of embryonic life and the responsibility. Apparently, legislation is human dignity of embryos and fetuses fill 212 ANNE WALDSCHMIDT the pages of countless legal reports.6 What constitutional values (must be) weighed up was once the fruit of conception that was against each other” making particular borne to term by the prospective mother “allowance for the Basic Law’s ruling in before becoming a child has long since favour of human dignity and life.” The been redefined and declared a legal entity basic right to freedom of research has to in its own right. Pregnant women are no be taken “particularly seriously” but even longer regarded as whole individuals who this right is “subject to the immanent bring forth life but as fetal environments limitations . . . that ensue from the constitution that represent a potential danger to the itself (Federal Minister of Justice, 1989, p. 10). embryo from which it has to be protected. However, the numerous exceptions foreseen The new Embryo Protection Law goes by the new law provide embryo researchers even further, to extend the duration of with enough loopholes – there will be no need embryo protection. According to § 218 of for them to remain idle any more than in the the German Criminal Code on abortion, past. Any claim to limit the freedom of the embryo is placed under state research must thus be classed as lip-service. protection after implantation in the If it is to be taken seriously, embryo mother’s womb. But now, according to § protection can only be effective if it goes 8, Clause 1, of the Embryo Protection hand in hand with protection of the Law, the fertilized egg is considered an pregnant woman and is not carried out embryo from the moment cell fusion against her will. In this context the occurs. This definition marks the dividing provisions concerning surrogate line between legal and illegal embryo motherhood are the yardstick against research. However, as it is more than which to measure the objectives and legal doubtful that the Embryo Protection Law remedies put forward by the lawmakers. will have any practical repercussions on To be sure, the legislation claims to have science and research, the symbolic nature banned surrogate motherhood, that is, for of this definition of the embryo becomes a child to be borne by anyone other than all the more significant, in particular with the genetic mother, yet at the same time it regard to women. The new legal formula, refrains from expressly banning embryo defining the beginning of life severs the donation. According to § 1, Clause 2, of embryo from the pregnant woman who the Embryo Protection Law, anyone can now be held responsible for the who “undertakes to artificially absolute protection of the legal entity inseminate an ovum for any other within her. Political experience shows that purpose than to bring about a pregnancy inasmuch as the embryo is held to be a of the woman from whom that ovum is legal entity in its own right, women’s taken” will be liable to punishment. rights are curtailed. Indeed she, the However, this formulation refers solely woman, no longer exists as an entity to the purpose of artificial insemination herself. Thus, as far as women are and does not really exclude actual concerned, there is more to this law than embryo donation or surrogate meets the eye and it is as yet impossible to motherhood. The reasoning behind this foresee how far reaching its consequences is that “Objections could justifiably be will be.7 It is more than likely, for raised against a criminal ban of this instance, that the Abortion Law will be kind at least in those cases in which tightened up so as to guarantee state embryo donation offers the only protection not only for test-tube embryos possibility of saving the embryo from but also for naturally conceived embryos death” (Bundestags-Drucksache 11/5460, from the moment of conception. p. 8). So we see that this exception is Moreover, the Embryo Protection Law geared toward a case in which a fertilized has adopted the ruling opinion with regard embryo cannot be implanted in the woman to freedom of research. In the case of from whom the egg originated and is thus reproductive technology “conflicting transferred to a”surrogate mother.” New German Laws on Reproductive Engineering 213 According to the reasoning of the problem. This controversial and ethically Embryo Protection Law surrogate reprehensible practice is condoned by the motherhood cannot reasonably be Embryo Protection Law. § 1, clause 2, imposed on a child as having three parents only forbids microinjection if it is would complicate the child’s identity employed for other purposes than bringing development (Bundestags-Drucksache about a pregnancy. Again the reasoning is 11/5460, 1989, p. 7). Divided motherhood embryo centered: The clause is designed is thus only forbidden because of the to prevent the production of pronuclei and prenatal emotional relationship of the thus the possibility of producing embryos woman to the fetus and future child. The for research purposes (Bundestags- structure of postnatal social relationships Drucksache 11/5460, p. 9). The and the role of the father, which are lawmakers give no consideration at all to crucial to the development of an the fact that women also need to be individual’s identity, are ignored. The fact protected from unnecessary, painful, and that this legislation forbids divided extremely dangerous medical invasions. motherhood but not sperm donation, Indeed, in this respect they even surpass which after all implies divided fatherhood, the German Federal Chamber of clearly illustrates just how narrow the Physicians,8 whose Central Ethics lawmakers’ concept of the parent-child Commission was not (yet ?) prepared to relationship is. Besides which it fails to permit this method in 1989. The argument formulate a detailed procedure for embryo here however was purely pragmatic: “The donation and thus opens the door to commission is convinced that surrogate motherhood, whether on a microinjection has a great future potential in commercial or on an altruistic basis. For treating male infertility but that it is as yet how is it intended to effectively prevent too early for it to be applied to humans” interested parties reaching amicable (Central Commission, 1989, p. 24). agreements (even without the knowledge The Embryo Protection Law makes a of the doctors)? So far the lawmakers have rather helpless attempt to prohibit another not addressed this question. That surrogate scandalous practice associated with motherhood should be rejected on reproductive technology, the killing off of principle because it means using another multiple fetuses in the womb (fetocide). woman’s body to fulfill one’s wish for a Multiple pregnancies often result from the child, because it is bound up with the high-dose hormone treatments that are commercialization of reproductive organs prescribed to ensure that doctors can point and abilities as well as eugenic to higher pregnancy rates while women’s expectations on the part of the genetic health is put at risk. Selective fetal parents – not one of these aspects has been reduction supposedly reduces the risk to taken into account by the lawmakers. the woman and the fetus after the event. In The biased view of the Federal August 1989, the Federal Chamber of Government and the parliament is also Physicians issued a policy statement on illustrated by the fact that the Embryo fetocide that indirectly legitimized this Protection Law allows IVF to be used on practice as far as the medical profession fertile women. So-called microinjection, was concerned (Central Commission, artificial penetration of the zona pellucida 1989, Item 4.3). It was followed by of the egg, designed to open the way for vehement public protest and the ruling sperm that are not capable of penetration parties had no alternative but to introduce is finding increasing use as a therapy for the relevant modifications to the Embryo male infertility. Bluntly this procedure Protection Bill during the committee stage. means that a fertile woman has to submit The original version made no specification to IVF treatment – with all the potential as to the precise number of embryos to be risks to her health it involves – although transferred to the prospective mother, not she but her partner has a fertility whereas now the number has been limited 214 ANNE WALDSCHMIDT to a maximum of three embryos that may built on shaky foundations. The latest be retransferred to the woman (§ 1, clause research findings, to which the lawmakers 1, No. 3, 4, and 5 – Embryo Protection constantly refer, no longer support the Law). And what, may we ask, is the assumption that human life begins with position with regard to the stimulation of cell fusion. In 1987 and 1988 an English egg production and the extraction of egg- research team was able to establish that cells? Again, there are no provisions to embryonic genome activity begins at the regulate procedures of this kind with the four-to-eight-cell stage (Central result that surplus embryos for future Commission, 1989, p. 32). Today, laboratory experimentation are scientists argue that the embryo only preprogrammed. becomes an individual once the genes are In fact, the provisions of the Embryo active, and not at the earlier stage of cell Protection Law concerning embryo fusion. The embryonic cluster of cells can research are altogether extremely therefore only be regarded as a human questionable. According to the definition being once its genetic programme is of the new law an “embryo” is a actually fixed, that is, when it has reached “fertilized, developable human egg-cell the four-to-eight-cell stage. Thus it should from the moment of cell fusion onwards” be permissable to experiment on and, (§ 8, Clause 1 – Embryo Protection Law). under certain circumstances, to “use and Totipotent cells that are capable of destroy” embryos up to the first gene division and development into an expression.9 This theory clearly illustrates individual along with pronuclei, that is, that all attempts to define the beginning of cells in which sperm penetration of the life by means of a static concept lead to egg cell has occurred (whether by natural absurdity, particularly if they are based on or artificial means) but cell fusion has not an approach that concentrates solely on yet taken place, are also protected by the the cell and leaves the woman as child- new law. bearer and birth-giver out of It is the introduction of consideration. “developability” as the major criterion in Current scientific developments deciding if an embryo should be protected suggest that it will be impossible to that is particularly problematic. This uphold the extensive protection of the criterion did not feature in the draft bill for embryo intended by the law for very long. an embryo protection law that was Over the last few decades, embryos have discussed in 1986. According to the law become a highly coveted object of that has now been passed all embryos are research and a raw material for medical to be considered developable for the first experimentation. Embryo research is 24 hours unless it is established that the generally justified with the argument that fertilized egg-cell does not develop it serves “higher” aims, namely the beyond the one-cell stage (§ 8, Clause 2 – mitigation of human suffering and the Embryo Protection Law). The new law protection of life and health. Yet any does not contain any definition of research can be vindicated with developability beyond this. Who is to generalized justifications of this kind. The judge, and on what criteria? This end, in this case “health,” is obviously fundamental question remains supposed to justify any means as far as the unanswered. It is most probably correct to scientists are concerned. But they are assume that in practice it will be the unable to say anything specific with practitioners of reproductive medicine regard to the tangible prospects of who will make this decision – led by their remedial success or therapies that embryo subjective and professional interests. research might bring. A statement made Cell fusion as a further major criterion on the Embryo Protection Law before the of embryonic life has been around for a by the medical research lobby at the long time. Yet even this pillar of the law is hearing parliamentary law committee in New German Laws on Reproductive Engineering 215 March 1990 was very general and vague interventions permitted by the new law on this score: “The therapeutic objective license the basic research required for germ remains even if gains for clinical line cell gene transfer in future. Germ line application are only discernable on a very therapy is already under discussion in the distant horizon” (Akademie für Ethik in United States and its application is no der Medizin, 1989, p. 7). longer ruled out on principle. Apparently, Indeed, contrary to its stated aim, the corresponding research is already under Embryo Protection Law now brings way in Portugal.11 Germany into line with other countries The lawmakers have also stood back and opens the door to embryo research. from making a clear stand against germ The detailed provisions are so full of line therapy. Consideration was given to omissions as to provide enough the fact that the only way to develop the opportunity for activities of this kind.10 It technique of germ line therapy would be already allows the deep-freezing of egg by human experiment. Because the cells and embryos. For example, § 1, consequences of the inevitable setbacks Clause 1, Item 5, implicitly sanctions would be irreversible – “at least at the conservation by failing to stipulate the present state of the art” – this would be maximum number of egg cells to be irreconcilable with the Basic Law. Under fertilized. Surplus embryos are always these circumstances the question of produced in connection with IVF whether germ line therapy was justifiable treatment. There is no way to prevent this at all could remain unresolved. At all because it is impossible to accurately events it is impossible to overlook the gauge the hormone dosages required to danger that it could be misused for the stimulate egg maturation and because the purposes of selective human breeding practitioners of reproductive medicine have (Bundestags-Druck-sache 11/5460, p. 11). started to introduce more and more egg cells So despite the fact that those responsible to the sperm in the test tube so as to increase for the law are by all means fully aware of the chances of fertilization and obtain a the dangers, on this issue of all issues they sufficient number of embryos to implant in leave the way open to science and the prospective mother. Otherwise their research. “success” rates would be far lower than they There was only one question on which already are. There is nothing in the Embryo the Bundestag remained firm. Despite Protection Law to prevent the preservation vigorous protests from the Federal of embryos provided that the storing of Chamber of Physicians, the planned ban surplus embryos can be justified on medical on embryo diagnosis was included in the grounds and is performed by a doctor law that was finally passed. § 6 of the (Bundestag-Drucksache 11/8057, p. 14; § 9, Embryo Protection Law is designed to No. 3 – Embryo Protection Law). What this prevent the selective breeding of actually means is that the Embryo Protection genetically identical individuals (cloning) Law allows embryo researchers to set up a and the isolation of totipotent embryonic bank of deep-frozen gametes for future use. cells for research or diagnostic purposes. Gamete research may also be This indirect ban on pre-implantation conducted with a clear conscience diagnosis was justified with the according to the provisions of the Embryo argument that it was impossible to Protection Law. § 5 allows artificial exclude the possibility of damage to the manipulation of gametes and/or germ line embryo during the separation process. cells provided the possibility of However, no references was made to the fertilization and implantation has been eugenic aspects necessarily involved excluded. It is at present a criminal offence with diagnosis of this kind. The Federal to perform germ line therapy but not to Chamber of Physicians objected that conduct the research necessary for the there was basically no difference development of the technique. The between prenatal diagnosis on embryos 216 ANNE WALDSCHMIDT and chorionic villi sampling. Both unashamedly provides a legal basis for the procedures involved the extraction and implementation of eugenics. It opens the examination of active or embryonic cells. door to the selection of sperm according to Patients, geneticists, doctors, laymen, and gender. Sex selection is now allowed “if . . the discerning public were in widespread . (it) serves to prevent a child suffering agreement as to the ethical innocuity and from Duchenne-type muscular dystrophy medical benefits of prenatal diagnosis or another similarly severe genetic (Beier, 1989, p. 33). The interests of the disease, providing that the disease the research scientists are evident. Embryo child is in danger of contracting is diagnosis is a branch of basic research that is recognized as being sufficiently severe by vital to the development of genetic and germ the competent authority instituted by the line therapy and appears to hold out the law of the Land” (This refers to the promise of “victory” over cancer and severe decentralized legal framework in the genetic diseases. It also promises to bring German Länder.) scientific laurels and the prospect of winning However, this provision clearly the Nobel Prize, as well as commercial contradicts the recommendations of a joint success on an international scale. Federation-Lander Working Party on The new law also contains a number of reproductive medicine made in 1988 to the other loopholes. There is no clear effect that IVF should only be permitted to definition covering the use of embryos for treat a couple’s sterility. It was clearly research purposes. “Use and destroy” stated that “this does not include genetic embryo research is prohibited but there is grounds” for otherwise, it was argued, this no ban on noninvasive diagnosis by would promote “a mechanism by which observation or the examination of embryos damaged life would automatically be in vitro before transfer to the woman for destroyed once damage has been detected” the purpose of bringing about a pregnancy. (Bund-Lander Working Party on Equally, there are no obstacles to Reproductive Medicine, 1988, p. 34). experimentation on embryos that have It is unbelievable – the Embryo been classified as dead or nondevelopable. Protection Law declares a specific The fact that the Embryo Protection Law disability as the yardstick against which also fails to prohibit or limit egg extraction all other diseases and disabilities are to be has a great bearing on research policy. The measured. Disabled people living with availability of women’s mature – or muscular dystrophy are obviously immature – eggs is the mainstay of expected to live with the stigma of finding reproductive medicine and embryo themselves stated by law to be objects of research. Science needs a constant supply legitimate negative selection, or, in other of this essential raw material. Attempts are words, meriting elimination. No doubt also being made to utilize human ovarian they will soon have to put up with remarks tissue taken from dead female fetuses, to the effect that their fathers must have taken from corpses, or removed during missed their sperm selection surgery as a source of material for medical appointments. and embryological research. The aim is to On the basis of current prenatal then mature these egg cells in the diagnosis practices, Trisomie 21 (Down’s laboratory so that they can subsequently syndrome) is already counted as a form of be artificially inseminated or used for disability that needn’t really exist any some other kind of research (Klein, 1989, more at all. Now muscular dystrophy is pp. 256 ff). These most recent declared the next so-called avoidable developments are not covered by the new disability on the list. So stealthily, step by Embryo Protection Law. step, we see the introduction of a Above all, § 3 of the Embryo catalogue of genetic diseases that are to be Protection Law has particularly far eliminated. Problems are also raised by reaching consequences for it plainly and the fact that the Embryo protection Law New German Laws on Reproductive Engineering 217 provides for state recognition of “similarly the Bundestag dealt with a bill put forward severe diseases” for which sex selection is by the oppositional SPD to solve “the to be allowed by “legally competent problems of artificial insemination for authorities” that are not defined any more humans and surgery on human gametes” specifically. This gives state authorities a (Bundestag-Drucksache 11/5710). The bill monopoly over the definition of disease contained provisions covering the and disability that is bound to have criminal, procedural, civil, and social devastating repercussions on the insurance aspects of the problem and was traditional concepts of health and intended to provide rulings for the entire sickness. It is also probable that it will field of reproductive medicine. However, soon become part of routine IVF this bill also condoned reproductive procedure for each individual sperm to be technology and embryo research in examined and discarded if it carries a sex- principle, it largely ignored women, and it linked genetic disease. There will be was argued solely on the basis of child growing social pressure to prevent these well-being and embryo protection. It was diseases at the earliest possible stage – obviously written without any that is, in the test-tube – as more and more understanding of feminist politics. The diseases are discovered on the sex SPD even proceeded from the same chromosomes. Couples who have a family definition of the embryo that underlies the history of diseases of this kind could find Embryo Protection Law. Nor was their themselves compelled to restrict line of argument on embryo research and reproduction to IVF with “healthy” sperm. surrogate motherhood any different from Historical experience shows that there is a that of the Federal Government. tendency for measures that were initially There were only a few minor restricted to limited target groups and differences in the positions advanced by justified on the grounds of preventing the Government and by the Parliamentary disease to be subsequently extended to Group of the SPD. For instance, the SPD cover the entire population and more and intended to make the production of more so-called inferior characteristics.12 surplus egg cells a punishable offence and To my knowledge this is the first time attempted to obstruct the development of since the end of the National Socialist era germ line therapy by calling for a ban on that a law officially specifies a disease the the manipulation of germ line cells. The occurrence of which justifies selection. Up SPD also intended to prohibit the freezing to now only one law has contained a of embryos and inseminated or immature paragraph specifying diseases warranting egg cells, but not the freezing of sperm. compulsory sterilization and this was the The argument in favour of banning cryo- National Socialist Law For the Prevention conservation rested solely on embryo of Congenitally Diseased Offspring, protection and the prevention of a passed in 1933.13 Not enough that for “generation leap” (Bundestags- years now we have been confronted with Drucksache 11/5710, 1989, p. 12) and not legislation that is implicitly founded on a on the fact that embryo research is eugenic philosophy. The time has dependent on frozen embryos and obviously come to formulate this gametes as a source material philosophy openly (again ?).14 (although this is the real issue at stake with regard to cryo-conservation). THE POSITIONS OF THE The SPD also intended to restrict PARLIAMENTARY OPPOSITION artificial insemination to married PARTIES: BETWEEN couples and firmly established OPPORTUNISM AND OUTRIGHT nonmarital relationships and to REJECTION exclude sperm donation (AID). IVF treatment was to be restricted to Along with the Embryo Protection Law, “medically indicated infertility on the 218 ANNE WALDSCHMIDT part of the woman.” Doctors were to be approach is no different from that of the obliged to keep donor sperm records. It ruling parties and it is with these ruling was also proposed that a state parties that they closed ranks in documentation office be set up as a parliament. depository for data on genetic case The only remaining opposition of histories. These last two provisions any significance was the Parliamentary would have made it possible to gather Group of Die Grünen/Bündnis 90, an enormous amount of information on which was unremitting and unequivocal the reproductive behaviour of the in its rejection of reproductive nation. engineering and the sole voice to The SPD proposal to submit couples articulate the feminist point of view in to compulsory counselling by a medical the parliamentary debate.16 In a practitioner and a psychosocial resolution put to the House, it exposed advisory centre prior to IVF treatment the inherently anti-woman and eugenic must also be seen as extremely nature of these technologies and problematic. Counselling was to described them as a mass human concentrate on child well-being and experiment (Bundestag-Drucksache not, by any stretch of the imagination, 11/8179). The detailed proposals on the needs and well-being of the demanded a broad public information woman who is, after all, the person who campaign to point out the risks and will physically undergo IVF treatment. failure rates of artificial insemination, Genetic counselling was also to be a rejected the financing of IVF through component of this compulsory the public health insurance scheme, and interview. Evidently, tribute was to be called for a ban on all reproductive and paid to eugenics in this way. It is medical experimentation on women, apparent here that the SPD has no embryos, and gametes. The Federal clear-cut position on eugenics. On the Government was called on to provide a one hand the SPD saw counselling on wide-ranging and voluntary advisory selective procedures as a compulsory service for the involuntarily childless component of IVF treatment, on the and to provide funds for research on the other hand it opposed the introduction causes of infertility and the of eugenic sperm sex selection and development of noninjurious means of unsuccessfully attempted to annul the contraception. Science and research relevant clause through the Bun-desrat was to be made more transparent and (the German Federal Upper House) nongovernmental and public bodies after the Embryo Protection Law had were to be given more say in the passed. However, all in all, the stance distribution of research funds. Research of the SPD can only be described as policy would take ethical principles, opportunistic. It came out in support of social and ecological compatibility, the crucial pillars of the government’s safety regulations, and social benefits, proposal even if it was not satisfied as well as minority positions and with a purely criminal law and pushed hitherto neglected problem areas into for more comprehensive statutory account. In the parliamentary debate on controls. Our aim is to prevent abuse October 24, 1990, the other parties sat and safeguard possibilities – this is the through the speech held by the Greens’ credo of the SPD with regard to all new spokeswoman outlining these detailed technologies and so too with regard to proposals, interrupting it frequently reproductive engineering. The belief with loud heckling and polemical behind this credo is that technology is remarks, and then proceeded to in itself neutral and that ethical continue with the business of the day – problems only arise when it comes the Embryo Protection Law was passed down to the application of with the votes of the Christian technology.15 In this, their basic Democrats and the Liberals. New German Laws on Reproductive Engineering 219 THE LAW ON THE FINANCING OF pregnancies following in vitro fertilization REPRODUCTIVE TECHNOLOGY is currently in the region of 20 to 25 per THROUGH THE PUBLIC HEALTH cent at the most and of these roughly a SCHEME: MONEY IS THE third end with a miscarriage. The briefing DECISIVE FACTOR should also deal with the health risks connected with artificial insemination Yet the ground had been prepared even be (e.g., ovarian cysts, complications from fore the Embryo Protection Law was surgery, high-risk pregnancies including a passed. In June 1989 the Cabinet had higher than normal incidence of multiple already decided to prepare an amendment pregnancies)” (The Federal Minister for to existing legislation reintroducing the Labour and Social Management, 1990, p. system by which the costs of IVF would 35). These statements amply illustrate the be covered by the health insurance boundless ignorance and irresponsibility schemes.17 The demand for IVF to be of the legislature – the regulations that returned to the list of social insurance have been introduced actually endorse and benefits was justified with the argument provide an institutional framework for that all involuntarily childless women IVF despite full knowledge of the dangers should have access to this method of involved with this technique. treatment irrespective of their financial Moreover, publicly financed treatment circumstances. The new reproductive of this kind may only be carried out in technologies should not be the privilege of institutions and by doctors licensed to do the well-off, who are able to afford to go so by the Länder authorities. They must be to private hospitals in this country or provided with the requisite diagnostic and arrange to have the treatment abroad. This therapeutic equipment, employ amendment was rushed through scientifically proven methods, and be run parliament, had already been passed by on a rational, efficient, and economically June 1990, and even came into force sound basis. Treatment must have a retrospectively from January 1, 1989. reasonable chance of success and may be With the public hardly having become attempted no more than four times. The aware of it, this created the conditions criterion of success is pregnancy. What necessary for reproductive engineering to this actually means is that the legislature go ahead with its plans even though its has adopted the line of reasoning put application in medical practice was forward by the practitioners of subject to a number of controls. reproductive medicine: that pregnancy is This law18 restricts artificial credited as a success to keep down the insemination, IVF, and gamete official failure rate, thus already reckoning intrafallopian transfer (GIFT) to married with the high rates of unsuccessful couples and does not allow sperm embryo transfer, nonincidence of donation from a third party. These pregnancy, and early miscarriage techniques may only be implemented on following IVF treatment. medical grounds and provided the married couple has previously been counselled by THE LAWS ON REPRODUCTIVE a doctor who is not conducting the MEDICINE AND EMBRYO treatment. The mandatory points to be RESEARCH: THE GROUND IS covered by the counsellor were outlined in PREPARED FOR THE FUTURE the ministerial draft as follows: “A detailed description must be given of the In the final analysis, public financing is psychological and physical stress the breakthrough for reproductive connected with this treatment. This engineering. Past experience has shown includes providing information on the that doctors tend to make certain generally low rates of success. In the case diagnoses, prescribe certain courses of of embryo transfer, the rate of successful treatment, and apply certain techniques 220 ANNE WALDSCHMIDT only when they can be sure that their bills and research lobbies have been amply will be paid and their profits assured. The safeguarded by providing a legal howl of protest with which the framework for current practices that have practitioners of reproductive medicine up to now only been sanctioned from greeted the temporary removal of these within the profession. Basically, the new treatments from the list of health law gives its blessing to what has long insurance benefits demonstrated one thing since become everyday practice – no more quite clearly – their main interest is in the and no less. Even so, it represents a lucrative earnings associated with decisive strategic step. Statutory reproductive engineering. Also, through regulations provide the instruments the social insurance schemes, they now necessary for state intervention in both gain access to a huge reservoir of clients biomedical research and the reproductive and patients on whom they can continue to behaviour of society. The legislation experiment. introduces structures and categories that Essentially, the government is duty will lend themselves to modification and bound to guarantee scientifically proven amendment in future. If fact, some of standards of medical care and patient these are already for seeable today. There safety within public health service.19 are signs that the outright ban will be These principles have been blatantly lifted in the case of cancer research and disregarded by the new health finance law that consideration is being given to the because artificial test-tube insemination is, possibility of dropping state prosecution in in effect, an unsuccessful treatment that is cases in which medical practitioners are being conducted as a mass human subject to a conflict of conscience (cf. experiment on a worldwide scale. Bülow, 1989, p. 139). Evaluation and risk assessment have only The penal clauses of the Embryo just begun, and it is already apparent that Protection Law only cover certain aspects these technologies involve immense social of the complex problem of reproductive dangers both to individuals and to society medicine, while condoning it in principle. as a whole – the manipulation and It is here that the whole dilemma of the exploitation of women, the violation of law becomes apparent. In view of the fact women’s rights, numerous severe injuries that reproductive medicine has been to the health of women and their children, declared legal practice and the fact that it eugenics, discrimination of the disabled is as good as impossible to keep up with and congenitally diseased, and the use of the latest technological developments, the embryonic tissue for dubious scientific law can only actually be brought to bear purposes. when it is much too late. This is quite The new Embryo Protection Law is apart from the fact that the government also problematic in the extreme. It makes has no interest in prosecuting practitioners heavy weather of protecting embryos from of this technology. In no way do the new the clutches of researchers, dispenses with regulations do justice to the problem. On any kind of control or supervisory the contrary, they actually support current mechanisms, and, as such, can only be developments and the uncontrolled designed to have purely symbolic value. It application of reproductive technologies. only half-heartedly bans embryo research The laws on reproductive engineering while at the same time endorsing will inevitably fail to fully address the reproductive medicine and gamete and problem as long as they only treat women germ line cell research, and can only be in passing or, at best, treat them as a seen as a compromise between the natural resource and the objects of research lobby and life protectionists. experimentation. It is utterly incredible to Antiabortionists have been appeased by defend the embryo’s right to human finding a formula for embryo protection dignity while trampling on the woman’s that pays lip service to restricting freedom right to human dignity in this way. of research. The interests of the science Throughout, women are regarded as New German Laws on Reproductive Engineering 221 nothing more than a receptacle for eggs and heterologous insemination have been the that are taken from them, fertilized, and central issue of controversy between the subsequently reim-planted. Attention is political parties for years. The Bavarian focused on the woman’s attitude to Conservatives insist that artificial insemination should only be permitted for pregnancy and the consequences this married couples; the SPD wants to allow it for might have for the embryo – not on her firmly established non-marital partnerships relationship to the child growing within and make sperm donation a criminal offence; her. On the one hand, the Embryo the Liberals advocate heterologous Protection Law places an increasing fertilization. The only issue on which they all number of restrictions on women’s control agree is that A.I.D. should not be available to over their own reproductive abilities and single women and lesbians. It has proved pregnancies and, on the other hand, lends impossible to introduce statutory regulations the embryo an independent legal status of covering all these issues to date. During the its own, thus effectively placing it in committee stage the ruling parties put forward a number of compromise proposals that would antagonism with its prospective mother. have permitted A.I.D. under certain And, last but not least, there is the circumstances but agreement was not reached question of technology assessment. The and they were not included in the final version experience of test-tube fertilization clearly of the Embryo Protection Law. demonstrates how necessary it is to 3. In May 1990 an official body, the Joint evaluate technologies, particularly in the Federation-Länder Working Party on Genome medical field, and how important it is for Analysis, submitted a comprehensive report this to be done before and not after new including recommendations for legal controls methods of treatment are applied to on genome analysis. Legislative proposals humans as a matter of common practice. based on these recommendations will probably come before parliament during the current The whole point of technology assessment session. is to inquire into the individual, social, and 4. The Central Ethics Commission of the ecological compatibility of diagnostic Federal Chamber of Physicians established methods and therapies and to remove all professional rules of conduct with regard to doubts as to their safety and effectiveness. the application of genetic therapy on humans Moreover, with genetic engineering at the beginning of 1989. They are of no actually being applied in medicine, there clinical relevance at present but they do is the added danger of more and more prepare the ground for future genetic human experiments being conducted in experimentation on humans and provide a hospitals and medical practices all over framework within which genetic therapy is to be permitted in Germany (cf. Zentrale the country. It may well soon become Kommission, 1989: Item 4.4). urgently necessary to introduce statutory 5. § 10 of the Embryo Protection Law controls to ban a branch of medicine that stresses that no-one may be obliged to submit is “using up” and “destroying” human to or to be party to artificial fertilization individuals in ever greater numbers. Yet, treatment. in view of the lamentable failure of the 6. For more details on this point cf. legislature to fully address the issues Chapter “Das Embryonenschutzgesetz – eine raised by reproductive engineering and rechtspolitischer Bewer-tung” in Fraktion Die embryo research (and this applies not only Grünen im Bundestag (Ed.), 1990, pp. 25–31. to Germany), it must be feared that any 7. There was massive criticism of a draft of future laws will be more likely to open up the the Embryo Protection Bill presented by the floodgates than to scotch the snake before it Federal Minister of Justice in 1986 envisaging is too late. the prosecution of pregnant women who “irresponsibly” cause damage to the embryo ENDNOTES or fetus within their bodies as a result of alcohol, nicotine or medication. This was no 1. Cf. the final version published in longer included in the Embryo Protection Law Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 2746. now in force although legal technicalities were 2. The conflicting positions on homologous the only reason for it being omitted – the law 222 ANNE WALDSCHMIDT only deals with the abuse of reproductive Prevention of Congenitally Diseased Offspring engineering and does not relate to what (1933) provided for compulsory sterilization happens after implantation of the egg in the for the following diseases: congenital idiocy, womb. This is covered by the Abortion Law. schizophrenia, manic-depressive disorders, But to defer a problem is not to solve it. epilepsy, hereditary St. Vitus’ Dance (Chorea According to the Federal Government an Huntington), hereditary blindness, hereditary amendment is already in preparation to deafness, severe cases of hereditary physical criminalize anyone irresponsibly damaging deformity and severe cases of alcoholism (cf. embryos or fetuses by medication or X-rays. It Weingart et al., 1988: 465). is unlikely that pregnant women will be 14. This is not an inadvertant lapse but a exempted from this amendment. clear strategy as is demonstrated by the fact 8. The Federal Chamber of Physicians that the modifications originally proposed by (Bundesärzte-kammer (BÄK)) is the private- the ruling parties included a further disease. law association of the Chambers of Physicians Among other things, sperm donation was to be of the German Länder which, in turn, are permitted in order to help (I quote) “prevent public-law entities in which all certified extremely severe cases of congenital disease doctors are statutory members. The Federal (e.g. Chorea Huntington)”. However, lack of Chamber of Physicians is the not undisputed agreement on the issue of A.I.D. prevented this central policy-making body representing the proposal from being taken up. status and professional interests of the medical 15. A typical example of the SPD position is profession. given by Wolf-Michael Catenhausen, 9. This was discussed, for instance, at a spokesman of the SPD Parliamentary Group conference in Bochum on the ethical problems on technological affairs, in an interview on the of genome analysis and genetic therapy held Embryo Protection Law in die Tageszeitung, by the Centre for Medical Ethics, Bochum, October 23, 1990. from October 5–6, 1989. The party of Democratic Socialism 10. In effect, there was a moratorium on (PDS) (the Socialist Unity Party in what was embryo research in the Federal Republic of the GDR) which entered the Bundestag after Germany up to the end of 1990 based on the German unification on October 3, 1990, was professional code, at that time the only official able to put forward its position in the plenary set of regulations referring to these activities. debate at the final reading of the Embryo The Federal Chamber of Physicians had issued Protection Law. In fact, the PDS spokeswoman guidelines for research on early embryos in even came out in favour of surrogate mother- 1985 and these were incorporated into the hood! (cf. Verhandlungen des Deutschen rules of professional conduct that are laid Bundestages, October 24, 1990: 18215) down by the Chamber of Physicians in the 17. In the Federal Republic of Germany (as individual Länder. The guidelines condoned it was before unification) IVF had been examinations of this kind but only after included in the list of benefits financed by the previous authorization from the Federal statutory health insurance scheme in 1985. A Chamber of Physicians’ “Central Commission new law was passed at the beginning of 1989 To Safeguard Ethical Principles in to cut the costs of public health care and Reproductive Medicine, Research on Human restructure the health service in the course of Embryos and Genetic Therapy” and it had which IVF was struck from the list of benefits. been agreed that no such authorization would Following massive protests and lobbying from be granted before statutory regulations had the medical profession and from disadvantaged come into force. At no time has the Federal couples, who founded self-help organizations Chamber of Physicians been near categorically to support their cause, the Federal Government rejecting embryo research of any kind. obviously felt compelled to reinstate this 11. cf, Statement of the Academy for Ethics benefit. in Medicine, March 3, 1989, (p. 7) and a 18. cf. Bundesratsdrucksache 314/90 and the German Press Agency (dpa) report, March 13, final version of the law published as KOV- 1990. Anpassungsgesetz 1990 in the Bundesge- 12. From 1933 onwards the sterilization and setzblatt I, p. 1211. euthanasia programmes conducted by the 19. At least, § 2 clause 1 and § 28 clause 1 National Socialists were extended to apply to Sozialgesetzbuch (1988) allow this inter- more and more categories of the population. pretation and there are also provisions to this 13. The National Socialist Law for the effect in the Arzneimittelgesetz (1976). New German Laws on Reproductive Engineering 223 REFERENCES Problemen der künstlichen Befruchtung beim Menschen und bei Eingriffen in Akademie für Ethik in der Medizin. (1989, menschliche Keimzellen. March 9). Stellungnahme zur Anhörung Bundestags-Drucksache 11/8057. (1990, zum Embryonen-schutzgesetz vor dem October 8). Deutscher Bundestag. 11. Rechtsausschu des Deutschen Bunde- Wahlperiode. Beschlu -empfehlung und stages. Bonn. (Mimeographed manuscript). Bericht des Rechtsausschusses a) zu dem Arzneimittelgesetz. (1976). In the amendment von der Bundesregierung eingebrachten of August 24, 1976. In Bundesgesetzblatt I “Entwurf eines Gesetzes zum Schutz von pp. 2445, 2448. Embryonen” (Drs. 11/5460), b) zu der Beier, Henning. (1989). Die internationale Unterrichtung durch durch die Entwicklung der Reproduktonsmedizin Bundesregierung “Kabinettbericht zur und der Forschung an menschlichen künstlichen Befruchtung beim Menschen” Embryonen 1988. In Zentrale Kommission (Drs. 11/1856) und c) zu dem Antrag der der Bundesärztekammer zur Wahrung Fraktion der SPD “Chancen und Risiken ethischer Grundsätze in der der Anwendung neuer Methoden der Reproduktionsmedizin, Forschung an künstlichen Befruchtung und bei Eingriffen Embryonen und zur Gentherapie. in menschliche Keimzellen” (Drs. Arbeitsund Erfahrungsbericht 1988 (Item 11/1662). 2.4). Köln. (Mimeographed manuscript). Bundestags-Drucksache 11/1879. (1990, Bülow, Detlev von. (1989). Entwurf eines October 10). Deutscher Bundestag, 11. Embryonen-schutzgesetzes – rechtliche Wahlperiode. Entsch-lie ungsantrag der Grenzen für die For-schungsfreiheit? In Fraktion der Grünen/Bündnis 90 zum Max-Planck-Gesellschaft (Ed.), Respekt Entwurf eines Gesetzes zum Schutze von vor dem werdenden Leben. Ein Presse- Embryonen (Embryonenschutzgesetz – seminar der Max-Planck-Gesellschaft zum ESchG). Thema Embryonenforschung. Schlo Der Bundesminister für Arbeit und Ringberg/Tegernsee. June 22–24, 1988 Sozialordnung. (1990, January 31). (pp. 131–140). Munich. (Self-published). Referentenentwurf für ein Gesetz uber die Bund-Länder-Arbeitsgruppe neunzehnte Anpassung der Leistungen Fortpflanzungsmedizin. (1989, August). nach dem Bundesversorgungsgesetz sowie Abschlu bericht. Bonn. (Mimeographed zur Änderung weiterer sozialrechtlicher manuscript). Vorschriften (KOV-Anpassungsgesetz Bund-Länder-Arbeitsgruppe Genomanalysen. 1990). Bonn. (Mimeographed manuscript). (1990, May). Abschlu bericht. Bonn. Der Bundesminister für Justiz. (1989, July 19). (Mimeographed manuscript). Referentenentwurf für ein Gesetz zum Bundesrats-Drucksache 314/90. (1990, May Schutze von Embryonen 11). Geset-zesbeschlu des Deutschen (Embryonenschutzgesetz – ESchG). Bonn. Bundestages. Gesetz über die neunzehnte (Mimeographed manuscript). Anpasung der Leistungen nach dem Der Bundesminister für Justiz. (1986, April Bundesversorgungsgesetz sowie zur 29). Diskussionsentwurf für ein Gesetz zum Änderung weiterer sozialrechlicher Schutze von Embryonen Vorschriften (KOV-Anpassungsgesetz (Embryonenschutzgesetz – ESchG). Bonn. 1990). (Mimeographed manuscript). Bundestags-Drucksache 11/5460. (1989, die tageszeitung. (1990, October 23). October 25). Deutscher Bundestag. 11. Einfallstor für die Eugenik. Wahlperiode. Geset-zentwurf der Embryonenschutzgesetz vor der Verab- Bundesregierung. Entwurf eines Gesetzes schiedung. zum Schutz von Embryonen (Embryonen- Embryonenschutzgesetz. (1990, December schutzgesetz – ESchG). 13). Gesetz zum Schutz von Embryonen Bundestags-Drucksache 11/5710. (1989, (ESchG). In Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 2746. November 16). Fraktion Die Grünen im Bundestag (Ed.). Deutscher Bundestag. 11. Wahlperiode. Geset- (1990, June). Fortpflanzungstechnologie, zentwurf der Frakion der SPD. Entwurf Embryonenforschung und rechtliche eines Gesetzes zur Regelung von Regelungen. Stellungnahme der Fraktion. Bonn. (Mimeographed manuscript). 224 ANNE WALDSCHMIDT Kaupen-Haas, Heidrun. (1986). Die Report. (1989, July 19). Eine Information des Bevölkerungsplaner im Bundesministers für Justiz. No. 30/89. Sachverständigenbeirat für Bevölkerungs- Bonn. und Rassenpolitik. In Heidrun Kaupen- Sozialgesetzbuch. (1989). Fünftes Buch (V). Haas (Ed.), Der Griff nach der Amendment of December 20, 1988. Bevölkerung. Aktualität und Kontinuität Gesetzliche Kranken-versicherung. In nazistischer Bevölkerungs politik (pp. 103– Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 2477. 120). Nördlingen: Greno Verlag. Verhandlungen des Deutschen Bundestages. Klein, Renate (Ed.). (1989). Das Geschäft mit (1990, October 24). 11. Wahlperiode. der Hoffnung. Erfahrungen mit der Plenarprotokoll der 230. Sitzung in Bonn. Fortpflanzngstechnologie. Frauen Weingart, Peter, Kroll, Jürgen, & Bayertz, berichten. Berlin: Orlanda Frauen-verlag. Kurt. (1988). Rasse. Blut und Gene. KOV-Anpassungsgesetz 1990. (1990, June Geschichte der Eugenik und 26). Gesetz über die neunzehnte Rassenhygiene in Deutschland. Anpassung der Leistungen nach dem Frankfurt/Main: Suhrkamp Verlag. Bundesversorgungsgesetz sowie zur Zentrale Kommission der Bundesärztekammer Änderung weiterer sozialrechtlicher zur Wahrung ethischer Grundsätze in der Vorschriften (KOVAnpG 1990). In Reproduktionsmedizin, Forschung an Bundesgesetzblatt I, p. 1211. Embryonen und zur Gentherapie. (1989). Arbeits- und Erfahrungsbericht 1988. Köln. (Mimeographed manuscript).
Pages to are hidden for
"THE EMBRYO AS A LEGAL ENTITY-WOMAN AS A FETAL ENVIRONMENT THE NEW"Please download to view full document