madkins
Registered
10
Edinburgh Evening News
Fri 25 Mar 2005
The law is halting birth of new era
Dr Ian Gibson
WHEN we announced that we were going to undertake a review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, a lot of people said we were mad.
They were absolutely right, of course, but someone had to do it. It was clear to us that the Act and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority were struggling to come to terms with advances in technology and had not kept pace with changes in medical practice and social attitudes.
The 1990 Act was underpinned by the report of the Warnock Committee published in 1984. We found that its foundations were still sound.
It was right that the embryo had some protection under the law, but not human rights. This means that IVF is acceptable and that research on embryos was ethical, provided that its value was compelling and
the results could not be achieved without usi
ng embryos.
So far, so good, unless you believe that a newly-fertilised embryo has a soul, which most people don't.
It's after this that it gets tricky. If you can fertilise embryos in a dish to make babies, what is the role of the state in deciding who can benefit from this technology and what they can use it for?
The 1990 Act has an infamous clause, which states that "a woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father) and of any other child who may be affected by the birth".
Looking after the welfare of the child sounds like a good thing, but in effect it enables the state to decide who is a fit parent.
We decided that this was discriminatory. It means that infertile couples' lives are scrutinised in a way that fertile couples would regard as a gross invasion of
thei
r privacy.
It means that lesbian couples, who are free to adopt,
can be denied treatment with donor sperm because a clinic thinks it's important that a child has a father, despite evidence to the contrary.
A further clause in the Act says that the HFEA can rule on "practices designed to secure that embryos are in a suitable condition to be placed in a woman or to determine whether embryos are suitable for that purpose".
This means that it can decide what genetic conditions can be screened, or for example, whether you can select a boy or a girl.
A lot of people are unhappy about where this might lead, with babies being created to order. Others object on the basis that a child is a gift not a product.
We decided to take an evidence-based approach, that you shouldn't tell people what they can and can't do, unless there is evidence that there is harm to individuals or to society.
If there is, then Parliament should set those limits.
Another issue
we looke
d at was genetic modification.
It is currently illegal to genetically modify an embryo. There a
re good safety reasons for being very cautious, but consider a family in which one of the parents carries a serious genetic condition. They go through IVF to try and select an embryo free from the condition, a widely practised process in the UK.
Let's say we can use genetic technologies safely to knock-out the offending gene. The effect is the same as if they had created several embryos and chosen one free of the gene.
Ever since Dolly the sheep was born at Roslin, the cloning issue has never been far from the headlines.
WE heard that in the future we may see embryos created using artificial sperm and eggs, and how combinations of human and animal cells could be used to create hybrids and chimeras.
We wouldn't begin to contemplate a human hybrid wandering our streets - but creating an embryo for valid scientific research to be destroyed after a few days is another matte
r.
No
-one has been able to explain to us why this should be prevented. We have found that several of the prohibitions w
ithin the HFE Act 1990 reflect an unwillingness to tackle taboos rather than coherent argument.
So where does this lead us? It doesn't mean that we don't regulate IVF. It just means that we have a regulator that concentrates on providing an environment where the safest and most effective treatment can flourish and doesn't try to be the nation's conscience.
The HFEA has performed a valuable role over the last 14 years, but it's had its day.
There must be boundaries set out in law, however, and we propose that new legislation should provide these.
At the moment, the HFE Act is being stretched to cope with things that were never intended. In our proposal, these issues are sorted out quickly in Parliament, rather than through lengthy court battles with appeal following appeal.
It doesn't mean all kinds of practices that are now forbidden should become
possible. What
we are saying is that if you want to prevent something, come up with the evidence and a coherent ethical argument.
If yo
u can't, then you are at liberty to disapprove, but please don't try to prevent others exercising their choices.
"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¢ Dr Ian Gibson MP is chairman of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
Skerryvore,
madkins
Edinburgh Evening News
Fri 25 Mar 2005
The law is halting birth of new era
Dr Ian Gibson
WHEN we announced that we were going to undertake a review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, a lot of people said we were mad.
They were absolutely right, of course, but someone had to do it. It was clear to us that the Act and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority were struggling to come to terms with advances in technology and had not kept pace with changes in medical practice and social attitudes.
The 1990 Act was underpinned by the report of the Warnock Committee published in 1984. We found that its foundations were still sound.
It was right that the embryo had some protection under the law, but not human rights. This means that IVF is acceptable and that research on embryos was ethical, provided that its value was compelling and
the results could not be achieved without usi
ng embryos.
So far, so good, unless you believe that a newly-fertilised embryo has a soul, which most people don't.
It's after this that it gets tricky. If you can fertilise embryos in a dish to make babies, what is the role of the state in deciding who can benefit from this technology and what they can use it for?
The 1990 Act has an infamous clause, which states that "a woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father) and of any other child who may be affected by the birth".
Looking after the welfare of the child sounds like a good thing, but in effect it enables the state to decide who is a fit parent.
We decided that this was discriminatory. It means that infertile couples' lives are scrutinised in a way that fertile couples would regard as a gross invasion of
thei
r privacy.
It means that lesbian couples, who are free to adopt,
can be denied treatment with donor sperm because a clinic thinks it's important that a child has a father, despite evidence to the contrary.
A further clause in the Act says that the HFEA can rule on "practices designed to secure that embryos are in a suitable condition to be placed in a woman or to determine whether embryos are suitable for that purpose".
This means that it can decide what genetic conditions can be screened, or for example, whether you can select a boy or a girl.
A lot of people are unhappy about where this might lead, with babies being created to order. Others object on the basis that a child is a gift not a product.
We decided to take an evidence-based approach, that you shouldn't tell people what they can and can't do, unless there is evidence that there is harm to individuals or to society.
If there is, then Parliament should set those limits.
Another issue
we looke
d at was genetic modification.
It is currently illegal to genetically modify an embryo. There a
re good safety reasons for being very cautious, but consider a family in which one of the parents carries a serious genetic condition. They go through IVF to try and select an embryo free from the condition, a widely practised process in the UK.
Let's say we can use genetic technologies safely to knock-out the offending gene. The effect is the same as if they had created several embryos and chosen one free of the gene.
Ever since Dolly the sheep was born at Roslin, the cloning issue has never been far from the headlines.
WE heard that in the future we may see embryos created using artificial sperm and eggs, and how combinations of human and animal cells could be used to create hybrids and chimeras.
We wouldn't begin to contemplate a human hybrid wandering our streets - but creating an embryo for valid scientific research to be destroyed after a few days is another matte
r.
No
-one has been able to explain to us why this should be prevented. We have found that several of the prohibitions w
ithin the HFE Act 1990 reflect an unwillingness to tackle taboos rather than coherent argument.
So where does this lead us? It doesn't mean that we don't regulate IVF. It just means that we have a regulator that concentrates on providing an environment where the safest and most effective treatment can flourish and doesn't try to be the nation's conscience.
The HFEA has performed a valuable role over the last 14 years, but it's had its day.
There must be boundaries set out in law, however, and we propose that new legislation should provide these.
At the moment, the HFE Act is being stretched to cope with things that were never intended. In our proposal, these issues are sorted out quickly in Parliament, rather than through lengthy court battles with appeal following appeal.
It doesn't mean all kinds of practices that are now forbidden should become
possible. What
we are saying is that if you want to prevent something, come up with the evidence and a coherent ethical argument.
If yo
u can't, then you are at liberty to disapprove, but please don't try to prevent others exercising their choices.
"â┚¬Ã…¡ÃƒÆ’”�šÃ”š¢ Dr Ian Gibson MP is chairman of the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee
Skerryvore,
madkins