Need for clarity

Ban preventing an Italian couple who are healthy carriers of genetic disease from screening embryos for in vitro fertilisation violated their right to respect for their private and family life: the decision of the European Court of Human Rights issued on August 28th in the case of “Costa and Pavan v. Italy”.  The judgement which noted the inconsistency of the Italian law on medically-assisted procreation, unleashed different reactions and complex comments. Hopefully the court’s ruling will be appealed.Decision of the Court. A Chamber of seven judges, headed by Belgium François Tulkens ruled on the case of Rosetta Costa and Walter Pavan, the Italian couple healthy carriers of cystic fibrosis who want to have a child by in vitro fertilisation: through  a pre-implanted diagnosis; Costa and Pavan can select the embryo and  avoid transmitting the disease to their offspring.  According to Italian law this procedure is banned (law n. 40), it prohibits embryo selection and limits it to sterile couples ( not the applicants). The Strasbourg judges “observed inconsistency in the Italian law” which “prohibits pre-implanted diagnosis” but allows pregnancy termination for therapeutic reasons. In the judgement, however, there is a distorted interpretation  of the  law on pregnancy termination (n.194). The court held that Italy was to pay the applicants 15, 000 euros in respect of non-pecuniary damage and  2,500 euros in respect of costs and expenses. This Chamber judgement is not final and during the three-month period following its delivery, any party may request that the case be referred to the Grand Chamber of the Strasbourg Court.”Appeal immediately”. “It is a superficial judgement”: commented Carlo Casini, Italian MP and president of  the “Movimento per la vita”  on The European Court of Human Rights ruling. Casini said to Sir that MpV had forwarded a written brief: “Despite this, the judgement did not keep into account our arguments”. Casini also points out a misinterpretation of law 194″ on pregnancy termination “and failure to examine differences  between prenatal diagnosis and pre-implanted diagnosis, the latter eugenic and selective”. For the Parliament’s president of the commission on Constitutional Affaires, the Chamber “realized there is “inconsistency” between law 40 on in vitro fertilization and law 194 on termination of pregnancy”. It is rather clear”,  Casini claims that the Italian voluntary termination of pregnancy law “is only concerned about women”, while the second, most recent one, “focuses on safeguarding all parties involved in medically-assisted procreation, parents and children”. “However not even  law 194, at least in writing, allows eugenic abortion because voluntary  termination of pregnancy  is permitted in cases of serious danger to  the mother and prenatal diagnosis is also functional on  healing a sick child. Differently genetic diagnosis  plans the killing of many embryonic offsprings to find the healthy ones”.  For MP Casini “the Italian government will certainly  appeal against the ruling. An appeal that will be hard to be rejected by the Grand Chamber”. “Either way- Casini adds- the Strasbourg Chamber judgement ” shows the importance of the “Uno di Noi” European initiative which mobilized citizens of 27 European countries to collect millions and millions of signatures to ask European institutions a clear acknowledgement of the right to life of every human being from conception”. Judges, according to the MP, “must keep into account the people’s will that for the first time will be expressed though this  means of direct democracy”.Recent rulings. This is not the Court of Human Rights first judgement on reproduction and life. In the last years,  Strasbourg judges, as well as the European Council, and the Court of Justice in Luxembourg (a body of the European Union) more than once ruled on this topic. Enough to mention the EU Court of Justice decision in October 2011 to disallow biotechnology patents involving embryonic stem cells. A historical ruling, that reaffirms  that human life begins with conception. On November 3 2011, the  Court in Strasbourg  ruled  that  the ban imposed  by Austrian law on heterologous fertilization  does not violate the European Convention on Human Rights. On October 7, 2010, the European Council highlighted that all health care providers  have the right to conscientious objection  when asked to perform miscarriage or  euthanasia.