Proposition 53K0221

Proposition de résolution concernant une meilleure protection de la femme ayant recours à la fécondation in vitro.

General information ¶

Authors

PS | SP Colette Burgeon, Valérie Déom, Marie-Claire Lambert, Yvan Mayeur

Submission date

Sept. 29, 2010

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

work test tube fertilisation bio-ethics artificial reproduction motherhood resolution of parliament dismissal leave on social grounds

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP Open Vld MR

Voted to reject

N-VA VB

Abstained from voting

LDD

Party dissidents ¶

• Peter Luykx (CD&V) voted to reject.
• Steven Vandeput (N-VA) abstained from voting.

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

March 17, 2011 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I will report on my bank.

The Social Affairs Committee discussed the present draft resolution at its meetings on 15 and 22 February.

Mr Yvan Mayeur, the main speaker of the text, explained his resolution. He aims to extend the protection that pregnant women enjoy from accidental ejaculation to women who initiate in vitro treatment. In fact, these women today cannot claim any protection against dismissal or any unexpected leave, despite the fact that they are undergoing medical guidance operations that often lead to physical or mental health problems.

During the general discussion, several colleagues spoke. Two amendments were also submitted. The first amendment aimed to extend the scope to all techniques of medical-guided reproduction. A second amendment replaces the second point of the resolution. In fact, it was no longer referred to Article 63 of the Act of 3 July 1978 on employment contracts, but it was requested by the Government to provide in the Labour Act of 16 March 1971 a protection against dismissal equivalent to that already existing for workers who are pregnant or have just given birth. This amendment was also adopted with 11 votes for and 4 against. The amended draft resolution in its entirety was adopted by 11 votes in favour and 4 against.

Mr. Speaker, a priori, I do not like very much the proposals for resolutions; I prefer the proposals for laws but a legislative principle means that certain things do not belong to the Parliament but to the executive. However, following the way we worked on this idea, we are in a competence that belongs to the executive because it is about changing royal decrees.

I would like to thank the members of the committee for their willingness to follow up on most of the content of this proposal for a resolution. It aims to protect, in a certain way, women who use in vitro fertilization. The number of these women has increased significantly in recent years, in particular due to the refinement of fertilization techniques and the improvement of access to this treatment. However, it is known that this technique of medically assisted reproduction is challenging both therapeutically and psychologically, especially during the period following fertilization, the waiting period for a possible pregnancy.

It is necessary to respect the woman’s desire to have a child in optimal conditions. This implies that everything is implemented so as not to compromise the continuity of his professional activity. However, in practice, ⁇ ining the relationship to work with the use of one or the other technique of procreation is not easily conciliable. Everyone will admit that, in practice, it is not appropriate for the worker to take, for example, in her annual leave, apply for unpaid leave or be forced to abandon her work in order to benefit from this capacity.

The idea supported by this proposal for a resolution is to provide workers who use in vitro fertilization or other techniques of medical assistance to reproduction with protection against dismissal, no more, similar to that provided in the framework of maternity protection. It is clear that the protection that exists in the context of maternity should not be affected by maternity, so it is in addition to maternity leave as such.

This protection needs to be guaranteed. Where does this proposal come from? In fact, it comes from practitioners. Doctors who specialize in in vitro fertilization find that many women face professional difficulties. They therefore requested that the legislation be adapted to protect them against the employer without necessarily granting additional rights. This protection must work the same way for any worker who announces to her employer that she is pregnant and who cannot be fired for that reason.

Of course, further debates should be addressed about the technical weight of medical treatments that should accompany fertility. Proposals have also been submitted on this subject, ⁇ by my group.

At least this is a first advance that corresponds to a real terrain. We obviously want the government to be able to adapt the labour legislation in this direction. I would like to thank my colleagues who, in the committee, were willing to follow the request addressed to the government. We hope it will be supported by Parliament tonight.

The Reform Movement supports the objective of this resolution. When a working woman decides to engage in a process of in vitro fertilization or any other PMA technique to fulfill her desire for a child, she begins a true fighter journey.

by Mr. As Mayeur said, this process involves a number of difficult steps to endure, both physically and psychologically. It also requires absences from the workplace. We also know that sterility problems are increasingly present, as one in six couples consult a doctor to have a child.

The text presented to us today allows to offer protection to the worker during treatments that can be very heavy and that can significantly increase the pressure on work.

So we support the initiative that is being taken today, convinced that it is important to help couples in this difficult approach.

I think this is a very difficult discussion. Of course, I have full understanding of the difficult situation in which couples who need to undergo this treatment are. It is a path of suffering that one does not wish to his worst enemy. Of course, I also wish that workers receive adequate social protection, but we cannot accept the present proposal.

What about all those other situations where people go through a difficult psychological or physical period? Will we provide dismissal protection for all these specific situations? This is a dangerous precedent.

What will we do about the inequal treatment of patients? In one hospital, the procedure can be started very smoothly and without too many tests. In another hospital there are waiting lists, one must undergo tests and wait many years before one gets the same protection. This is an unfair situation. Furthermore, I do not see the need to include this situation on the list of legitimate absences. During a period of physical or emotional problems, there is already a solution. A doctor may prescribe sick leave. Why create a new solution?

However, the fact that the resolution is extended to all types of fertility treatments gave the decision. That may mean that a woman needs little medical consultation and will enjoy immediate discharge protection. Which employee will hire a young woman in this situation? I cannot imagine that this is the purpose of your resolution, colleagues, but it is unfortunately the outcome of it.

Thank you, Mrs. Sminate, and congratulations on your maiden speech.

Mr. Speaker, Mrs. Sminate, I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it is not about bringing a new solution for pleasure! On the contrary! I really invite you to meet with the professionals in the academic centers where medical assisted procreation is practiced. Make sure to meet with professionals in the Belgian university centers, whether from the North, South or Brussels, to see how it goes. They will tell you that, sometimes for very long months or even years, some women – since they are essentially women – have repeated consultations, are summoned at such dates for treatments, samples, uterine implantations, follow-up, dosages, blood samples at a certain time of the cycle, etc. They do not choose it! This is obligatory for them! I’m not going to do it here, but I could give you a lesson.

These women are subjected, on the professional level, to pressures that are sometimes all but negligible. Of course, this does not always go badly. There are ⁇ employers who take into account the reality of these women and with whom it goes very well within the company but it also happens that it does not go well. All the political groups that voted for this proposal in the committee were well aware of the reality of situations not invented but experienced that require an appropriate and specific response.

I repeat, it is frankly not about bringing for pleasure a new solution that would not correspond to a situation experienced. I also invite you to meet these women. I’m sure, like me, you know them. You will be aware of the repercussions it has on the private, family and professional levels. These repercussions are far from simple and clearly shatter their lives. I hope you will recognize this legitimate desire for a child, this desire to found a family.

I also hope that we will be able to take another step. This text is an important signal and makes us move forward towards what we would like to tend to.

As the government is in ordinary affairs, it is up to parliament to take its responsibilities. This is why I submitted a bill to amend the laws of 16 March 1971 and of 3 July 1978 in order to allow workers, but especially workers, to leave their work, with the maintenance of their remuneration, in order to be able to receive treatment against infertility and to prevent these persons from being the subject of abusive dismissal.

We must live by taking into account the reality of these families, of those women of the 21st century who will be able to become mothers thanks to the scientific and medical technologies put in place.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join the words of my colleague doctor and colleague Chamber member, Mrs. Fonck.

During the discussion in the committee, we made clear that this is really medical-guided fertility treatments. We then cited a number of examples, for example about people in education who, when they suddenly get the message to go to the hospital for a pick-up of eggs, can not without difficulty leave their classroom and disappear for a while.

The prime minister can do that here, but I suppose he disappeared for other reasons.

All madness on a stick, Mr. Speaker, colleagues, we have cited plenty of examples during the discussions. I do not want to repeat them all here. However, they are really medical-guided reproductive techniques, which require interventions and which are associated with physical, physical discomfort.

It is of course necessary to inform the employer. It is also necessary that in the event of any doubts about the sincerity a control doctor can be sent. This is normal and obvious. The control doctor is bound by his professional secrecy and can perfectly determine who is rightly or wrongly staying at home for the aforementioned reason.

This is a matter that has not yet been included in the law. It is a new given. More and more couples need to resort to fertility techniques in order, as Ms. Fonck pointed out, to fill the right to have a child.

Mrs Sminate, I applauded for your first presentation in the hemisphere. However, I fundamentally disagree with you. If you do not want to support the proposal, you must do so on the basis of other arguments and not on the basis of false arguments, such as the claim that a person concerned must wait in one hospital a lot longer than in another hospital. All treatment schemes are the same. The only difference is the patients. Sometimes it is on both, so on the pair. Men and women have problems. In addition, every woman has different problems. This is the difference in treatment.

We also noticed, when we dealt with the refund for in vitro fertilization, that there are enormously many different techniques and different durations. In one patient, IVF already succeeds at the second attempt, while in another patient it only succeeds at the seventh attempt. This is just a biological fact.

If you are against it, then you can say that about me – it is here, by the way, the place for it – but then you have to use other arguments. I had hoped that you would have taken inspiration from the discussions in the committee, to use other arguments.

Mr. Speaker, again, it continues to list treatments that perfectly fit into the current regulation and around which through that way a lot can be solved.

Mrs. Fonck, before accusing people of not knowing the reality, I invite you to talk to those people first. You might be surprised at how much experience people have with these treatments.