The embryo is not an object

The embryo, whether frozen or in-vitro, cannot be considered an object of property. The ruling issued on August 27 by the Great Chambre of the European Court on the rights of man is important. It involves a fundamental aspect of the recognition of human dignity from the moment of conception. Judges in Strasbourg issued a definitive and quasi-unanimous ruling (16 out of 17) on the appeal filed by an Italian citizen, Adele Parrillo, after Italy had forbidden her to donate five embryos obtained in 2002 with her companion Stefano Rolla, a military killed in an attack in Nassiriya after the donation, and cryopreserved for scientific research since his death. In the action lodged in Strasbourg in 2011, Parrillo had argued that Article 13 of Italian law number 40/2004 on medically assisted reproduction – prohibiting all forms of testing on embryos – violates her right to the respect of private and family life as well as the respect of private property. All the more, she said, that the embryos had been created before the law took effect. The judges’ decision. “Preventing a woman from donating embryos obtained through in vitro fertilization for scientific purposes does not violate the respect for her private life”, the Court affirmed in a statement, commenting on the ruling. For this reason, “Italy has not violated Art. 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights” (right to the respect of private and family life). Referring to the other right invoked by the applicant, the Court of Human Rights has held that it “cannot apply to this case, because human embryos cannot be reduced to a property as stipulated in Article 1 of Protocol 1 of the European Convention on Human Rights”. Renewed attention. It’s a “new season of the right to life”, said Carlo Casini, honorary president of the Pro-life Movement in Italy and of the European Federation of Pro-life movements “One of Us”. The Court’s decision, he said, “is extremely important as its basically rules that the embryo cannot be the object of property even when its life is still in its early stages and in a test-tube”. For Casini, the decision of the Court “could influence also the ruling yet to be issued by the Court of Justice in Luxembourg, subject to an appeal against the refusal of the European Commission to acknowledge the European citizens’ initiative One of Us, with over two million signatories demanding that the EU stop financing activities that involve the destruction of the human embryo” “.The real violation of human rights – underlined Paola Ricci Sindoni, national president of ‘Science & Life’ – would be to behave as if man could be disposed of at will on the basis of the decision of others. There cannot be, in human relationships, human beings on which we can exert a property right: in this, the great European campaign ‘One of Us’ has surely contributed to the creation of a renewed focus on these issues”. Lights and shadows. On the same wavelength Antonio G. Spagnolo, director of the Bioethics Institute of the Catholic University in Rome, said: “The embryo is a human being in all respects, towards whom no right to property can be claimed. “Given previous judgments that have somehow scrapped parts of the law 40 – he continued – the Court’s decision highlights elements of reasonableness which ought to be recognized, such as the fact that in this case there is no question of an infringement of personal rights”.Spagnolo welcomes this ruling “which protects the rights of those – the embryo – who cannot give their consensus to research/self-testing, as stipulated in the Helsinki declaration”.He said he appreciates the “quasi-unanimous” vote of the judges who said “no” to “the instrumental use of human beings, because this is what it would amount to”.In this specific case, he added, “the question of a balance between the possible damage of a part set against the benefit of another is out of the picture”. The ruling also appears as an attempt “to put a stop to the current drift of desires”.Although there are some shadows, such as one of the reasons underlying the decision whereby the ban is “necessary in a democratic society”, in the absence of proof of the consent of the applicant’s partner to the donation. “This statement is ambiguous – Spagnolo cautioned – had there been a living will or a clear indication would the core of the matter have changed?” In fact, the embryo is either “unavailable” or “available”. Its status cannot change according to the consent to donation of both parents.