|
Commons Speech – Human Tissues and Embryos Bill
David Burrowes (con): I want to address most of my remarks, however, to something that is in the Queen’s Speech: the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. I was pleased to be a member of the Joint Committee on the draft Human Tissue and Embryos Bill, although it had insufficient time for scrutiny and a limited remit. The Government have pinned their colours to the embryonic research mast through their pledge that the new Bill will
“reform the regulation of human embryology and ensure that Britain remains at the forefront of medical research.”
The key question is whether the Government’s desire is to be at the forefront of medical research or embryonic research. A primary concern is the proposal to permit research into inter-species embryos. Although the presumption in the Bill is the Warnock position, which permits research on human embryos and therefore their destruction, it is important to record the acute concern about the extension and expansion of such research. In its leader on 26 April, The Times rightly stated:
“Unfashionable as it may be to say so, destroying an embryo extinguishes the possibility of a life.”
To balance that, I would say that the science editor of The Times was not right in the evidence that he gave to our Committee. He said that
“there is... indifference and perhaps a lack of really strongly held views”
on the subject of inter-species embryos.
We should not underestimate the level of concern among the public. Let me make it clear that the destruction of an embryo after it has been subjected to experimentation and used to create a fusion of human and animal cells matters deeply. The ethical implications, as I am sure we are aware, are immense, not least because that involves tampering with the fundamental essence of human life. Its implications will have an impact beyond these shores, with the scientific world watching, as it did with the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, to see how high we will jump or—in my view—how far we will sink.
In many places, the Bill will permit things that are banned in countries such as France, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium and Canada. It is not surprising that the UK lags behind when it comes to ethical principles. The chief medical officer, Sir Liam Donaldson, gave evidence to the Committee and said:
“We have had, generally, in this country a deficit in medical ethics”.
In the absence of a clear moral compass, it is inevitable that research seems to cross more ethical boundaries in the name of progress, and wanting to be at the forefront of it. At the very least, the moderate recommendation of the Joint Committee for a bioethical Committee of both Houses should be followed up.
The aim of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill is, we presume, to promote useful research, but the evidence supporting the potential for useful research using embryos or, where there is a shortage of those, inter-species embryos, is limited. Evidence from scientists suggests that there is no chance of embryonic research delivering positive therapeutic outcomes for a long time. The goalposts have been widened since the wild hopes in 1990. It is important that we should pursue alternatives that are not fraught with the ethical controversies surrounding inter-species embryos. Umbilical cord blood is one possibility, as is using adult stem cells, which have already provided more than 70 treatments. I have a ten-minute Bill about how to put in place greater provision for retaining cord blood, so that we can research that possibility further. Why are we speculating in an ethically precarious future? Surely we should be investing in ethical research. Surely we should have a Bill that is at the forefront not just of research, but of ethical research.
The Bill goes further than that, however. It deals with the wider issue of fatherhood and seeks to define the legal parentage of children in a new way. Although there is an increasing cross-party recognition of the importance of the role of fatherhood in social and emotional well-being, the concern with the Bill is that parenthood will move from a biological relationship to a legal responsibility. As a fellow member of the Committee, Baroness Deech, said on 8 November, the concern is that fatherhood is being downplayed in fertility treatment, with men being reduced to nothing more than a “genetic contributor”.
The Government’s stance on judicial policy is contradictory, on the one hand encouraging fathers to be part of the birth certificate process, but on the other seeking to remove the need to take account of the father when considering fertility treatment. Doing so has an important symbolic value. We should not sanction fatherlessness; indeed, we should not go further, as the Bill seeks to do, and sanction state deception. In the words of a donor-conceived person:
“I was angry at the idea that where donor conception is concerned, everyone focuses on the ‘parents’, the adults who can make choices about their own lives. The recipient gets sympathy for wanting to have a child...It’s hypocritical of parents and medical professionals to assume that biological roots won’t matter to the ‘products’”.
We should challenge that and say that they are not “products”—regardless of whether they are children or unborn children.
|
|
