John Paul II established the Pontifical Academy for Life (Pontificia Academia Pro Vita – PAV) whose specific task is to:
a) study questions and issues connected with the promotion and defence of human life.
b) foster a culture of life.
c) inform the most relavant results of its study and research in a clear and prompt manner.

The PAV had their twelfth general assembly this week from Feb. 27th to March 1st. at the Vatican City, New Hall of the Synod. The theme of the conference was, “The Human Embryo before Implantation. Scientific Update and Bioethical Considerations.”
The President of the PAV is H.E. Msgr. Elio Sgreccia.
I wish I could have been there at that conference…although I might have shouted..
The programme included the following:
The Development of the Embryo before Implantation by Prof. G. Sica
Pre-implantation and Prenatal Diagnosis by Prof. C. Bellieni
Biomedical and Ethical Considerations on Pre-implantation Diagnosis by Prof. K. FitzGerald
Prenatal and Pre-implantation Diagnosis: the Point of View of Parents by Prof. M.O. Rethoré
Classical and Medieval Thought (St. Thomas) on the Human Embryo by Prof. M. Pangallo
The Pre-implantation Embryo between Biology and Philosophy: the Individual by Prof. A. Gil Lopes
Can a Human Individual not be a Person? by Prof. R. Spaemann
The Reasons for the Duty to Have a Juridical Defence of the Embryo Dr. Jean-Marie Le Menè
Here’s a link to the PAV website.
Today I received news from the Associated Press with some of the conclusions of the conference reported by Nicole Winfield:

There have also been cases where parents seek to have a child with specific non-diseased characteristics to help a diseased older sibling through tissue or organ donation, they said.
“How will this ‘savior’ child live his situation?” asked Prof. Marie-Odile Rethore, a member of France’s Jerome Lejeune Institute, which conducts research into Down’s Syndrome. “How will he live the death of the older child he was not able to save?”
In a paper delivered at the conference, she said France’s National Committee on Ethics issued its opinion on the topic in 2002, saying: “If medically assisted procreation is no longer aimed at favoring the birth of children for themselves but to be used to repair another child, we are entering into a humanity that despises itself.”

Read the Associated Press story via Yahoo News here.
First of all, I’m sure that the story from the AP is not informing the most relavant results of the conference. And from what I read at the story I think I know the reason why Prof. Marie-Oldie Rethore is against pre implantation genetic diagnosis, it’s because she studies Down’s Syndrome and Down’s Syndrome is not a terminal disease. I understand her point of view. With PGD parents are able to decide whether or not TO TRY to have a baby and she thinks that parents shouldnt have that choice. Now, she needs to understand that there are other cases like ours where its a matter of life and death, a battle against a terminal diagnosis. I decided to use preimplantation genetic diagnosis because I chose life for myself and for my family.
I think the AP reporter is wrong to use that quote from Prof. Marie-Oldie Rethore in her story. And I don’t know in what context Prof. Marie-Oldie Rethore used that phrase…. From what I read, I think it was wrong for her to say “How will this ‘savior’ child live his situation? How will he live the death of the older child he was not able to save?”. That philosophy is incorrect. If we follow that same train of thought we would not be here. There would be no blood donors for example, because “how will they feel if they are not able to save a patient that needs a blood transfusion?”
Anyways… One day, I’m going to go to one of this conferences to talk about Andy and Sofia. And by doing that I will be able to help a lot of people who are trying to find “One fit savior”.