[Morals, logic and ethics in reproductive medicine].

Human reproduction has always been a matter of philosophical interrogations and controversies. This situation has been reinforced by the technical evolution which has occurred during the past years. Both hopes and concerns have been raised at the same time. Two recent advancements deserve consideration and are given as demonstrative examples: intracytoplasmic injection of spermatozoon, preimplantatory diagnosis. Their consequences are very important for both the medical and the philosophical approach. One of the questions which arises at this occasion is to determine if research on pre embryos is legitimate or not. This evolution has provoked some reluctancy and several criticisms concerning the future of the children obtained by such techniques: the risk of slippery slope, possibly leading to a form of eugenics, and the fundamental and philosophical problem of the status of the embryo. However, behind these discussions a deeper and heavier controversial matter may be discovered; it deals with the role and the responsibilities of the governmental power. An opposition does exist between two different perceptions: on the one hand, the concept of a powerful governmental body, responsible for the respect of a statutory law, grounded on a sort of universal ethical rule, to be followed by all, a concept which bears the risk of totalitarianism; on the other hand, the concept of a law with a limited responsibility to protect public order, allowing a normal social life. Amongst the numerous responsibilities of the governmental power, one is often neglected, everywhere; its concerns the protection of the female life and health. Some examples are given. However the most frightening risk, much more dangerous than the frequently alleged risk of biological eugenics, is what can be called "economical eugenics". Again some examples are given, in all the systems of social protection. Submitted to ethical rules imposed by political and legal powers, and to the influence of economical forces, what will be the role and the responsibilities of the practitioner? Unfortunately the answer may be obvious: the only way is leading to a relinquishment of medical responsibility. Far away from the dialogue which was the rule of the "dual relationship" between the patient and the practitioner, away too from the more complicated situation of today, characterized by the intervention of "third parties", the evolution, probably unavoidable, appears to be towards the withdrawal of the psychological, moral, human and humanistic involvement of the practitioner, leading him or her to a technical role.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)