Advertisement

So Different and Yet So Similar: Comparing the Enhancement of Human and Animal Bodies in French Law

  • Sonia Desmoulin-Canselier
Chapter
  • 65 Downloads
Part of the Health, Technology and Society book series (HTE)

Abstract

At first sight, the question of enhancement receives a totally different answer for humans and animals. Animal improvement is legally organized and institutionalized, through artificial reproduction, selection and biotechnologies, whereas human enhancement seems to be condemned outright. However, some elements do not fit into this clear picture. Numerous techniques used in breeding are now proposed for use in human reproduction. In doping, the comparison may lead to the counter-intuitive acknowledgement that animals are not always less protected than humans. Human embryos are now used for scientific research and for the long-term improvement of the human species. Some beloved animals may benefit from cutting-edge veterinary techniques. These various elements shed light on the blurred borderline between care and improvement in both human and animal bodies.

Keywords

Human Embryo Human Species Penal Code Civil Code Legal Text 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. AFSSA (2005) Bénéfices et risques liés aux applications du clonage aux animaux d’élevage ( Paris: AFSSA).Google Scholar
  2. Agence de la Biomédecine (2008) Bilan d’application de la loi de bioéthique du 6 août 2004. Rapport à la Ministre de la santé, de la jeunesse, des sports et de la vie associative (Paris: Agence de la Biomédecine, October 2008 ).Google Scholar
  3. Antoine S. (2005) Rapport sur le régime juridique de l’animal (Paris: Ministry of Justice, 10 May).Google Scholar
  4. Article 16–1, §2 and 3, Civil Code.Google Scholar
  5. Articles 214–1 to 215–4, Penal Code.Google Scholar
  6. Articles 214–2, 511–1–2, 511–18–1, 517 and 518, Penal Code.Google Scholar
  7. Articles L. 2123–2 and following, L. 2151–2, L. 6322–1 and following, Public Health Code.Google Scholar
  8. Articles L. 653–1 and following, Rural Code.Google Scholar
  9. Articles L. 232–1 to L. 232–31; L. 241–1 to L. 241–10, Sports Code.Google Scholar
  10. Bateman S. (2004) ‘La nature fait-elle (encore) bien les choses?’, in Pharo P. (ed.), L’homme et le vivant ( Paris: PUF ‘Science, histoire et société’ ), pp. 391–404.Google Scholar
  11. Baud J.-P. (1993) L’affaire de la main volée. Une histoire juridique du corps ( Paris: Le Seuil ), 243 p.Google Scholar
  12. Baud J.-P. (2007) v° Propriété, in Marzano M. (ed.), Dictionnaire du corps ( Paris: PUF ‘Quadrige’ ), pp. 770–6.Google Scholar
  13. Bellivier F. (2007), v° Espèce humaine, in Marzano M. (ed.), Dictionnaire du corps ( Paris: PUF ‘Quadrige’ ), pp. 351–4.Google Scholar
  14. Berteau P. (2000) ‘Dopage, droit et médecine du sport’, Médecine et Droit, 44 ( Paris: Elsevier ), pp. 6–15.Google Scholar
  15. Besnier J.-M. (2009) Demain les posthumains. Le futur a-t-il besoin de nous? ( Paris: Fayard ‘Haute tension’ ), 216 p.Google Scholar
  16. Bonnaire V.Y. (2000) ‘Le dopage de l’animal de compétition’, in P. Laure (ed.), Dopage et société ( Paris: Ellipses ), pp. 420–32.Google Scholar
  17. Bostrom N. (2005) ‘A history of transhumanist thought’, Journal of Evolution and Technology, 14, April 2005, http://jetpress.org/volume14/ freitas.html.
  18. Buchanan A., Brock D.W., Daniels N. and Wikler D. (2001) From Chance to Choice. Genetics and Justice ( Cambridge: CUP ), 414 p.Google Scholar
  19. Carbonnier J. (2004) Droit civil, 1, Introduction. Les personnes. La famille, l’enfant, le couple ( Paris: PUF ‘Quadrige’ ), pp. 373–418.Google Scholar
  20. Cassin B. (ed.) (2004), v° Comparaison, Vocabulaire européen des philosophies ( Paris: Le Seuil-Robert ), pp. 243–8.Google Scholar
  21. Chardeau M.-A. (2006) Les choses communes (Paris: LGDJ ‘Bibliothèque de droit privé’), t. 464, 504 p.Google Scholar
  22. Coghlan A. (2007) ‘Frankenbunny, human, or cybrid?’, New Scientist, 5 January, http://www.newscientist.com/blog/shortsharpscience/2007/01/frankenbunny-human-or-cybrid_05.html.Google Scholar
  23. Constitutional Council (1994) ‘27 July 1994’, in Recueil Dalloz ( Paris: Dalloz ), 1995, Jurisprudence p. 237, note B. Mathieu.Google Scholar
  24. Cour d’Appel de Douai (2010) ‘Appeal n° 09/05120, SASP Sté Stade Malherbe de Caen Calvados Basse-Normandie c/ SASP LOSC Lille Métropole’, 16 September.Google Scholar
  25. Cour de Cassation, Commercial Chamber (2010) ‘Appeal n° 09–65805, SASP ASSE Loire c/ Sté Club de football Zénit’, 1 June.Google Scholar
  26. Cour de Cassation, Criminal Chamber (2006) ‘Appeal n° 05–87791’, 14 March.Google Scholar
  27. Defrance J. (2004) v° Dopage, in D. Lecourt (ed.) Dictionnaire de la pensée médicale ( Paris: PUF ), pp. 350–2.Google Scholar
  28. Desmoulin S. (2006a) L’animal, entre science et droit (Aix-en-Provence: Presses Universitaires d’Aix-Marseille), §192–204.Google Scholar
  29. Desmoulin S. (2006b) ‘Lutte contre le dopage et encadrement médicalisé des activités sportives. Remarques à propos de la loi n° 2006–405 of 5 April 2006’, Revue de droit sanitaire et social, 5, October, 852–64. Directive 2010/63/UE of 22 September 2010 on the protection of animals used for scientific purposes.Google Scholar
  30. EFSA (2008) ‘Scientific Opinion of the Scientific Committee, Food Safety, Animal Health and Welfare and Environmental Impact of Animals derived from Cloning by Somatic Cell Nucleus Transfer (SCNT) and their Offspring and Products Obtained from those Animals’, EFSA Journal, 767, 1–49.Google Scholar
  31. EFSA (2009) ‘Statement —– Further Advice on the Implications of Animal Cloning (SCNT)’, EFSA Journal, RN 319, 1–15.Google Scholar
  32. EFSA (2012) ‘Statement–Update of the State of Animal Health and Welfare and Environmental Impacts of Animals derived from SCNT Cloning and their Offspring, and Food Safety Products Obtained from those Animals’, EFSA Journal, 10 (7), 2794.Google Scholar
  33. Fagot-Largeault A. (2011) ‘Les nouveaux modes de procréation’, in Hominisation, humanisation: le rôle du droit (Paris: Workshop at the Collège de France), 29 April, http://www.collegedefrance.fr/default/EN/all/int_dro/Seminaire_du_29_avril_2011_Hom.htm.Google Scholar
  34. Fédida P., Lecourt D., Mattei J.-F. et al. (1996) L’embryon humain est-il humain? ( Paris: PUF ‘Forum Diderot’ ), 93 p.Google Scholar
  35. French Transhumanist Association (2009) ‘Cahier dâcteur’, http://www.debatpublic-nano.org/documents/liste-cahier-acteurs.html.Google Scholar
  36. Fukuyama F. (2004) ‘Transhumanism’, Foreign Policy, 1 September.Google Scholar
  37. Green M. et al. (2005) ‘Ethics: moral issues of human-non human primate neural grafting’, Science, 309.Google Scholar
  38. Hermitte M.-A. (2011) ‘De la question de la race à celle de léspèce–Analyse juridique du transhumanisme’, in Canselier G. and DesmoulinCanselier S. (eds), Les catégories ethno-raciales à lëre des biotechnologies. Droit, sciences et médecine face à la diversité humaine ( Paris: Société de Législation comparée ‘UMR de droit comparé’ ), pp. 155–70.Google Scholar
  39. Herzog-Evans M. (2000) ‘Homme, homme juridique et humanité de lémbryon’, Revue trimestrielle de droit civil, 65–78.Google Scholar
  40. Jouannet P. (2007) v° Procréation médicalisée, in Marzano M. (ed.), Dictionnaire du corps ( Paris: PUF ‘Quadrige’ ), pp. 766–70.Google Scholar
  41. Labbée X. (1990) La condition juridique du corps humain avant la naissance et après la mort ( Lille: Presses universitaires de Lille ), rééd. Presses universitaires du Septentrion, 2012, p. 450Google Scholar
  42. Labbée X. (1999) ‘Esquisse d’une définition civiliste de léspèce humaine’, in Recueil Dalloz ( Paris: Dalloz ), pp. 437–42.Google Scholar
  43. Labbée X. (2002) ‘La personne, l’âme et le corps’, Les Petites Affiches, 243, 5 December, 5–8.Google Scholar
  44. Lapouble J.-C. (2006) ‘La lutte contre le dopage et la protection de la santé des sportifs’, JCP-La Semaine Juridique (Paris: Juris-Classeur), édition générale 2006, I, 136, n° 17, 893–8.Google Scholar
  45. Lassalle J.-Y. (1999) ‘Le dopage des sportifs: une nouvelle loi’, JCP-La Semaine juridique ( Paris: Juris-Classeur ), édition générale, I, 133, 845–52.Google Scholar
  46. Le Breton D. (1999) Làdieu au corps ( Paris: Métaillé ), 238 p.Google Scholar
  47. Le Douarin N. (2000) Des chimères, des clones et des gènes ( Paris: Odile Jacob ‘Sciences’ ), 496 p.Google Scholar
  48. Le Monde (1998) ‘Clonage: le gouvernement néerlandais interdit le clonage de bovins’, Le Monde, 2 March.Google Scholar
  49. Loi n° 89–432 of 28 June 1989.Google Scholar
  50. Loi n° 99–223 of 23 March 1999.Google Scholar
  51. Loi n° 2004–800 of 6 August 2004.Google Scholar
  52. Loi n° 2006–405 of 5 April 2006.Google Scholar
  53. Loi n° 2011–814 of 7 July 2011.Google Scholar
  54. Loi n° 2013–715 of 6 August 2013Google Scholar
  55. Marguénaud J.-P. (1998) ‘La personnalité juridique des animaux’, in Recueil Dalloz (Paris: Dalloz ), Chronique p. 205.Google Scholar
  56. Peis-Hitier M.-P. (2005) ‘Recherche d’une qualification juridique de léspèce humaine’, in Recueil Dalloz ( Paris: Dalloz ), Chronique, pp. 865–9.Google Scholar
  57. Roger J. (1987) Les sciences de la vie dans la pensée française au XVIIIe siècle ( Paris: Albin Michel ‘L’évolution de l’humanité’ ), 852 p.Google Scholar
  58. Savulescu J. (2001) ‘Procreative beneficence: why we should select the best children’, Bioethics, 15 (5/6), 413–26, http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/content/BPL_Images/Journal_Samples/BIOT0269–9702~15~5and6~251%5C251.pdf.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Shreeve J. (2005) ‘L’avenir des chimères’, Futuribles, 312, October.Google Scholar
  60. Sloterdijk P. (1999a) ‘Regeln für den Menschenpark’, Die Zeit.Google Scholar
  61. Sloterdijk P. (1999b) ‘Règles pour le parc humain. Réponse à la Lettre sur l’humanisme’, French translation of 1999a, Le Monde des débats, October, additional document.Google Scholar
  62. Sloterdijk P. (2009a) ‘Rules for the human zoo: a response to the Letter on humanism’, English translation of 1999a, Environment and Planning D: Society and Space, 27, 12–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Sloterdijk P. (2009b) ‘Règles pour le parc humain. Réponse à la Lettre sur l’humanisme’, French translation of 1999a, in ‘Règles pour le parc humain’ suivi de ‘La domestication de létre’ ( Paris: Mille et une nuits).Google Scholar
  64. Taupitz J. and Weschka M. (2009) Chimbrids–Chimeras and Hybrids in Comparative European and International Research: Scientific, Ethical, Philosophical and Legal Aspects ( Berlin: Springer-Verlag ), 1058 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Thouvenin D. (2007) ‘Le corps à corps’, in David-Ménard M. (ed.), Autour de Pierre Fédida. Regards, savoirs, pratiques ( Paris: PUF ), 151–75.Google Scholar
  66. Transhumanist Declaration (1998, modified version 2009), http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-declaration/.

Copyright information

© Sonia Desmoulin-Canselier 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sonia Desmoulin-Canselier

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations