| Previous Section | Home Page |
Column 55
Even though the score of pro-research versus anti-research speeches from the Back Benches on Second Reading was 11 each, my distinct impression was that those against research had the better of the argument. That is remarkable. Those of us who have tried to follow the topic closely as it has developed over the winter since it was debated in another place were struck by the deluge of one-sided publicity, not only this weekend in quality Sunday newspapers or on behalf of one programme in one hospital or one individual. Despite that one-sided treatment in the media, it must be clear to anyone who reads the Official Report of 2 April that hon. Members who spoke in favour of research were put on the defensive.I shall illustrate that by recalling that debate briefly. I shall touch on some of the highlights, and if two have already been touched on by the Father of the House, I hope that hon. Members will forgive me. The Secretary of State claimed then, as he did this afternoon, that an embryo was not a human being. Yet, if the embryo were not human or alive and did not have the built-in capacity to grow and develop to birth, why should the experimenters want it?
It was also claimed then, and again this afternoon by my hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson), that it is not an embryo until 14 days after conception and that until then it is a pre-embryo. Yet, as the Father of the House reminded us, the term "pre-embryo" cannot be found in any reputable source of reference or medical dictionary. Furthermore, we are entitled to ask those who still attach significance to 14 days, "Fourteen days into what?" If it is not 14 days into life, what is it 14 days into?
On Second Reading, it was claimed that embryo research was needed to improve the success of IVF, and the low take-home baby rate was quoted. Several centres are climbing the learning curve and achieving substantially greater success rates. One such is the Sheffield fertility centre. I shall quote a public reference to a report so that hon. Members can consult it, but they will expect me to have been at pains to consult privately. On 6 February, The Daily Telegraph stated of the centre :
"Here the emphasis is on IVF the natural way, using the one egg normally produced. Drugs are used only in rare cases, when women do not ovulate."
The latest results
"show that one in four women who finally receive an embryo become pregnant, although not all run to term. There is no risk of multiple births, overstimulated ovaries, or spare embryos. With no drugs, the cost is considerably lower."
I understand that the university of Sheffield's infertility clinic at the Jessop hospital for women runs a natural cycle programme with emphasis on developing a follicle without excessive stimulation, so there is only one follicle and only one embryo. That does away with many of the ethical problems about spare embryos.
I have discussed the programme with its head, Professor I. D. Cooke, and without associating him even remotely with any responsibility for my remarks, I wish to put on record my appreciation of his dedication and motivation, and of the quality and direction of his work. Contrary to the impression that we could not fail to have during the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barking, work in this field is not confined to Hammersmith.
Column 56
It is important to make a clear distinction between non-invasive research on embryos which are to be implanted, which is ethically acceptable, and destructive research, in which the embryo is destroyed. This takes us to the heart of the debate. That is the issue. As I reminded the Secretary of State earlier this evening, where the major obstacles to IVF have been overcome, is it not logical that the most valuable data would come from non-invasive research? Yet, on Second Reading, several hon. Members claimed, first, that a ban on embryo research would stop all IVF, secondly that IVF success rates could not improve without research, and thirdly, that halting embryo experiments would leave infertile couples untreated. In all countries which have outlawed embryo research, IVF programmes continue unhindered. The Father of the House told us that the results in Victoria and South Australia are on a par with, if not better than, those anywhere in the world. As the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier)--I note that he is no longer in his place, but he will not mind my mentioning him--pointed out to my hon. Friend the Member for Peckham (Ms. Harman) on Second Reading, IVF success rates depend more on the experience of the clinicians and the number of treatment cycles than on the benefits of research. There are alternatives to IVF, notably microsurgery, which has a far higher success rate. The Secretary of State stressed the growing value of gene therapy.On Second Reading we heard the oft-repeated claim that embryo research is needed to treat and eliminate congenital and inherited diseases. That is not even claimed by Progress and its campaign newspaper. True prevention means avoiding conception of a child with a disorder, and one way of achieving that is to test eggs before fertilisation. I am advised that, recently, human eggs have been successfully tested for genetic disease. Indeed, the only research projects in which scientists are seeking genuine cures for genetic diseases are being done without the use of human embryos. I understand that they are making realistic advances.
During the past few years, great advances have been made in the treatment of genetic and chromosomal diseases, without the use of human embryos. Even since the Bill started its passage through Parliament, articles have appeared in medical journals almost weekly, reporting advances in molecular biology without the use of human embryos and realistic claims of true treatment of genetic disease. In many important respects, the Warnock report is now out of date. It would be interesting to see the outcome if the Committee were to sit now.
Both my hon. Friends the Members for Barking and Peckham suggested that, if embryo research were banned, the testing of embryos for genetic defects would stop. That is not true. Even if embryo research is banned, schedule 2(1)(d) will allow the screening of embryos for genetic defects before implantation, whether or not one agrees with the practice. It is also untrue for newspapers to claim that the sex selection technique which was announced late last week will be stopped by a vote against embryo experimentation. Under the same schedule, screening is permitted. It is also untrue to claim that only the use of human embryos allows such a development. There are several ways in which such a technique could be developed far more effectively.
I stress that we are not discussing whether research per se is good or bad. We all plainly favour scientific research,
Column 57
without which there would be no progress for the benefit of mankind. Tonight we are deciding whether to permit destructive research on embryos for the first 14 days or to insist the nothing shall be done to an embryo, except for its own good. We must also decide on the production of spare embryos, the donation of eggs, sperm and/or embryos by persons outside the marital relationship of the proposed child's parents, the storage--for example, the freezing--of embryos as well as adequate monitoring, even within a statutory framework.My hon. Friend the Member for Peckham has argued that the 14-day limit represents such a significant break point in human development that it will act as an anchor and prevent any drift beyond the agreed limit. How many hon. Members share such optimism? It is not the view of those working in the field. To take just one example, Professor Bob Edwards, the world's pioneer of the IVF technique, is on record as saying recently :
"rules like that cannot be made about embryology, which is a gradual process of steady change."
I suspect that some hon. Members would support research if they could be sure that it would be strictly controlled.
Mr. Seamus Mallon (Newry and Armagh) : I raised this point on Second Reading and raise it again because it constantly worries me. If we accept the thesis that research is valuable to the human condition, as I do, and that it cannot be finite and stopped, for example, on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday or on the ninth, 10th, 11th or 14th day, by what standards and at what stage will we decide how that research will develop? I firmly believe that sooner or later we shall have a Bill to amend the 14- day limit. That is the weakness. Otherwise, the argument in favour of research is defeated, because it is to say that research is finite and can stop on a certain day.
6 pm
Mr. Duffy : I entirely share the fears and reservations expressed by my hon. Friend. The activity will be notoriously difficult to monitor.
It is interesting that the German Government should be taking such a strong line on embryonic research. Yet the German Bill has been criticised by the German SPD, the Social Democratic party--for the benefit of some of my hon. Friends they are our socialist colleagues in Germany--on the grounds that it does not go far enough in protecting the embryo or in controlling the enthusiasm of doctors and researchers.
The Germans know how easily a compassionate impulse can be translated into a holocaust. That is well illustrated by Frederick Wertham in his deeply disturbing book, "A Sign for Cain", by the manner in which the acceptance in the Weimar republic of euthanasia as an enlightened and estimable practice provided the original justification in the Third Reich for some of the horrors that were to follow.
On Second Reading, I described how some mothers have found a special joy in caring for their disabled children. None of us can have visited such children and their parents without feeling happy and uplifted. Nevertheless, in terms of the quality of life, there would seem to be little reason for allowing the birth of such children, but the same reasoning applies to the infirm and the senile old. Nowadays, society as a whole is not well disposed towards the protection of the weak and the vulnerable, or the responsibility of the individual.
Column 58
In terms of the sanctity of life, the situation is quite different. There are things that one must not do to humans, simply because they are human. Conception lies at the root of morality and it is the only possible answer to those who think that the end can always justify the means. When one poses questions about such basic principles to the medical establishment, one generally receives nothing but the slipperiest or replies. One is invited to distinguish the embryo from the pre-embryo, or told that life does not really begin until the third week. On what basis, then, do we decide that a person should not be allowed to be born or that another person should not be allowed to go on living? On what basis does one decide that a disabled child has no right to be born or to live?Contrary to the closing remarks of the Secretary of State, I believe that the choice lies between the quality of life and the sanctity of life. Which side are we on? We cannot, no matter how hard we try, be on both sides ; the Secretary of State tried, but he did not succeed. Are we on the side that inevitably means keeping down our numbers so that we all get ever more affluent, or are we on the side of the sanctity of life with mankind as a family--not equal, but brothers and sisters whose father is God, in whose image we are all made? I am for the latter, and I am confident of its ultimate triumph.
Mr. Thurnham : The hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said that it was difficult to monitor embryo research, and I should like to start by congratulating the voluntary licensing authority, now the interim licensing authority, on monitoring such difficult research and on establishing the confidence that the research carried out in this country satisfies the requirements for which the House is looking.
Research work is being done in many centres--38 have been approved and another 12 are subject to approval. There are thus about 50 centres for clinical and research work, and 64 different projects have been authorised since 1985. Such work represents a unique British institution, and other Parliaments around the world are watching us to see how we deal with this matter and how we introduce legislation that satisfies all of us, including those few already mentioned who are strongly opposed to research.
Those people are in the minority. The opinion poll recently conducted by National Opinion Polls, which contacted 981 people, showed that only 57 were strongly opposed to research on any grounds. We must remember that we are dealing with a minority, but we want to find legislation that will satisfy them.
We should congratulate Mary Donaldson and the committee of the licensing authority on their work in establishing firm guidelines.
Mr. Alton : I must intervene before the hon. Gentleman's comment about a supposedly true and accurate opinion poll is embedded in Hansard. Once again, I must repeat what has already been said--there is probably no one in the House opposed to research. People are opposed to destructive experimentation on the human embryo. A question about such experimentation was not asked in that opinion poll.
Mr. Thurnham : That has already been dealt with. A number of embryos are spare as a result of treatment, but I suppose that the hon. Gentleman would rather that they perish than provide any useful purpose.
Column 59
I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the licensing authority has worked well, and we must congratulate it on carrying out the major recommendations of the Warnock committee report. When it was published in 1984, we looked forward to the establishment of a licensing authority and to the debate in this House to establish the statutory grounds for that authority. The voluntary licensing authority has laid a firm basis upon which a statutory body can be established to carry out the requirements of the House.A number of arguments have been advanced against research ; I should like to deal with them one by one. The principal argument against such research is that one is dealing with an individual human being from the very moment of fertilisation. In the first few days, however, that is not so : one is dealing with a cluster of undifferentiated cells that do not acquire their individuality until later. Those cells are capable of dividing and coming together again.
It is that very point that has exercised the minds of moral theologians. I am satisfied with the arguments that have been advanced by the Archbishop of York and by Catholic theologians such as Jack Mahoney, Kevin Kelly and Norman Ford. They argue that one cannot talk about individuality until about the 14th day. As to the Christian view, I was pleased to learn from a letter from the Venerable Bill Brison, the Archdeacon of Bolton, that he agrees with such embryo research.
Mr. Alton : The hon. Gentleman has, once again, referred to Norman Ford, but I must refer him to his letter which appeared in The Tablet two months ago. Then, he said that, because there were doubts about the beginnings of life, one must always err on the side of that doubt.
Mr. Thurnham : If such doubts exist, why should we send doctors to prison? If there is doubt, those doctors should continue with their good work. They should not have their worked stopped by being sent to prison. Will we improve the health of our nation by sending those doctors to prison?
It has been argued that the limit of 14 days is the slippery slope. I believe that that time limit is a practical one, as that is the stage at which the primitive streak appears and the growing cells start to acquire individuality. It is a natural time limit to choose, as a woman does not know she is pregnant until the embryo has reached its 14th day. We should not forget that those women who use IUD coils and pills lose millions of embryos before the 14th day. Those embryos are not regarded as human beings in the same way as we would regard those that become fully developed persons.
An embryo or pre-embryo can only be kept alive in a test tube for a few days. It is not possible to keep it alive in a test tube beyond the ninth day, and I understand that most of them die within the first six or seven days. The 14-day limit is way beyond any period during which embryos are used for experimentation.
Mr. Mallon rose --
Mr. Thurnham : Some people say that they favour IVF babies, but oppose research. I agree with the Archbishop
Column 60
of York that that is an immoral argument. The IVF treatment would not be available if it was not for the good work carried out by Patrick Steptoe and Robert Edwards.Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West) : My right hon. Friend has said that hon. Members are opposed to research but in favour of IVF. Let me repeat that many hon. Members who will vote against the research outlined in the Bill are in favour of research provided that an embryo is used for implantation in order to grow into an individual--we are not against research per se.
Mr. Thurnham : That is absolute nonsense. If my hon. Friend spoke to Professor Edwards--unfortunately, Patrick Steptoe is no longer with us--he would tell him that it was necessary for them to carry out more than 300 experiments before the first test-tube baby in the world was born.
Louise Brown would not be with us today as a healthy child if it were not for those 300 experiments. It is absolute bunkum to say that one is in favour of the babies, but not of the research that brought them about. This country leads the world in this work ; the excellent work done in Hammersmith hospital and elsewhere is a great tribute to the excellence of British scientists and their common sense in carrying on with this work and not believing that it was wrong and they should not do it. That is supported by public opinion polls. Poll after poll after poll shows that the public support that work. In the latest opinion poll, 85 per cent. of the public were in favour of IVF babies who result from research work.
Another argument is that the process is unnecessary because, if one sits and thinks long enough, one will come up with the answers, and if one does have to do research work, it can be done on animals or gametes. Much work is done on mice. One of the guidelines for the licensing authority is that research should not be allowed unless it cannot be done on animals. Only then can it be done with human embryos. Mice eggs can be used to show that freezing is possible, but so far it has not proved possible to keep human eggs by freezing them. That is one sector in which more research is needed. It has been shown that some diseases in mice--Lesch-Nyham syndrome, for example--can be cured, but so far it has proved impossible to do such work with humans. That is another example which shows that research must be done with human embryos, not just animal embryos. The argument about using gametes does not stand up. The Medical Research Council says that that is ethically unacceptable. It shows the need for further work to test fertilisation and develop contraceptives, where it must be possible to test the embryos or to carry out procedures that will give rise to embryos if we are to obtain the answers we need.
Another argument is that we should not trust the doctors, and that they are all divided. Someone said that they were almost equally divided. That is not true : more than 90 per cent. of the doctors in the world, according to Professor Martin Bobrow--a leading geneticist at Guy's hospital--are in favour of research. Only a minority are against it, and I suspect that, if they are Catholics, they have been put in a difficult position by the attitude taken by the Pope and the Vatican. I suspect that that lies behind
Column 61
the objections of most of the scientists whom I have come across. It is unfortunate that the Catholic Church should have put some scientists in that position.My right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) talked about this being a search-and-destroy mission, and said that there were no cures. The natural process leads to the rejection of embryos if something is wrong. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State said, there is a high failure rate and a high rejection rate--as high as 50 per cent.--among humans. This is a natural process, and I do not understand what is wrong in helping where nature may fail to reject those embryos that will not lead to healthy babies. It is totally wrong for a mother to be forced to go through with a pregnancy or face an abortion at a later stage if she could have such treatment.
6.15 pm
Mr. Andrew Rowe (Mid-Kent) : A great many hon. Members feel some anxiety about the proposition that one should interfere, but a massive amount of interference has already been entered into, with the result that large numbers of children and foetuses who would never have been able to survive in the past, survive with appalling conditions. Therefore, we are not talking about a level playing field, but a process which, having already been begun, must be counteracted by further work.
Mr. Thurnham : I quite agree with my hon. Friend. At present, about 2,000 abortions are carried out each year on grounds of foetal abnormality, but still 20,000 children are born every year with some sort of congenital handicap. Half the most severe cases--category 10--end up in institutions because their families are unable to look after them. Those people who are so concerned about the dignity and sanctity of life, and oppose this research, should do more to look after such children, rather than turn their backs on them and leave them in institutions.
The argument that this process is a matter of unfair discrimination against the handicapped is one of the cruellest I have heard. To suggest that we should want handicapped people or that a mother would want to give birth to a handicapped child is completely wrong. All mothers would prefer to have a healthy child ; it is wrong to suggest that anyone would want to enter this world with a handicap. I am sure that Beethoven or anyone else suffering from a handicap would have preferred to be healthy. We should do all that we can to help to bring about healthy people and not revel in people's handicaps.
Mr. A. J. Beith (Berwick-upon-Tweed) : Is the hon. Gentleman saying that to those of my constituents--a number of whom have approached me--who would have much have preferred that their children had been born without handicaps, but strongly believed that they had no right to deprive them of life because they were handicapped?
Mr. Thurnham : Those children who have been born with handicaps deserve all the love and care that we can give them. However, we surely do not want more children to be born with handicaps than we can help, and we should help mothers to have choice. Surely this is a matter of choice and we should allow families to choose, so that where there are serious genetic disorders--I have heard some most distressing cases of families with severe genetic disorders--we should allow choice. Research would allow
Column 62
those people to enjoy marriages in which they can look forward to producing chidren free of such dreadful diseases.Some people have said that screening would not work, but I point to the examples in Cyprus and Sardinia, where the severe illness Thalassaemia major--a form of anaemia--has been almost eliminated by screening the population. In this country, one in 20 people has the cystic fibrosis gene. It is possible that in future we shall be able to offer screening so that people who want to be free from the risk of carrying the cystic fibrosis gene to future generations can be given a test to discover whether it is likely.
The cost to the National Health Service, in financial terms, let alone human misery, has been estimated by the Royal College of Physicians as £86 million a year for many of the leading genetic diseases. Therefore, on financial grounds alone, there is a strong argument for some element of screening. It is a matter of chance for most of us. On average, we carry some six defective genes out of 100, 000 different genes in our bodies. It is a matter of chance whether we meet a partner who has the same gene, so that our children are at risk of a serious genetic disorder.
It has also been said that only a few people would benefit, and hard cases might make bad law. That is appalling. The work of the Genetic Interest Group, which has already been mentioned, should be thoroughly supported and we should not turn our backs on a small minority of people--however small-- because of the severity of their difficulties. We should do all we can to help them and produce legislation to allow research to continue.
A good feature of this debate is that we have been able to hear those arguments from the minorities affected. Five years ago, when Enoch Powell, the former right hon. Member for South Down, brought in his Bill which would have banned all research and allowed a couple to have a test-tube baby only with written permission from the Secretary of State, we did not hear such arguments. It is not easy for people suffering from a genetic disease to come forward. They are not likely to parade down the street saying that they want the research to be allowed. If they are one of the one in 10 couples suffering from infertility, are they likely to march to Parliament in huge lobbies? They have come, but it is not easy for such people to do so. Recently, I was pleased to receive a petition from my constituents, Steven and Beverley Crook, which had a number of signatures in favour of research, because the couple found that they needed it. People are coming forward, but we must recognise that it is not easy to do so. That couple told me that they had not even been able to tell their relatives about the need for their treatment until quite a late stage. It is not easy for couples to discuss it among themselves, let alone make it public.
I am appalled to hear some of the arguments advanced against research. My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) said that infertility arose only when people were sexually promiscuous, and therefore there was no need for research.
Mrs. Ann Winterton : I object to that slur. What I said in a debate was that two of the main causes of infertility were due to life style. That is a fact ; it does not mean that I consider that all infertile couples have behaved in such a
Column 63
way. I have friends who are infertile. The hon. Gentleman has sunk to rock bottom to raise something like that in this debate.Mr. Thurnham : It was my hon. Friend who raised that point. In 85 per cent. of infertility cases, there is no evidence of any infection. Even if there is, we should not deny those people the treatment they deserve as much as anyone else.
It is not true that IVF leads to increased deaths and handicaps. We heard some figures about that from my right hon. Friend the Member for Castlepoint, but the latest figures show that major congenital handicaps between 1979 and 1988 were 2.2 per cent. overall, exactly the same as for the population in general. I understand that the figures for spina bifida are much lower, so although IVF presents difficulties associated with multiple births, the record for single births is extremely good. We should all be glad that Louise Brown was born healthy ; had she been unfortunate enough to be handicapped in some way, many people would have said that all the research work should stop.
Sir Bernard Braine : I have been listening with care to my hon. Friend, who I know speaks with great sincerity. He believes in the efficacy of embryo research for IVF and he claimed that we had the best record in the world. Will be address himself to the fact that, in South Australia, where embryo experimentation has been banned, the IVF success rate is higher than here? What is the explanation for that?
Mr. Thurnham : My right hon. Friend should be careful not to mislead himself. Success rates must be carefully examined-- Mrs. Gorman rose--
Mr. Thurnham : If success rates relate only to women in their most fertile stages, greater success can obviously be obtained than in places where patients who are desperate and who may have passed the age of 40-- when a woman's natural fertility is reduced--are being treated. If many of the hospitals in this country attempt to treat women who are reaching the end of their naturally fertile period, it is less likely that they will enjoy such high success rates. However, if my right hon. Friend compares the latest figures over a proper period, he will find that we are indeed successful in this country. The Australian state in which no research is taking place has nothing to teach us, because the doctors have had to rely on obtaining their information from elsewhere.
Mr. James Couchman (Gillingham) : Is it not true, in the context of the much-vaunted success rates in South Australia, that non-destructive research has not been banned, and that the success rates there are in any case no higher than here? Are they not a myth perpetrated by those who want research banned?
Will my hon. Friend consider the fact that the success rates of IVF, which is as yet an imperfect procedure, are still very low, and that, if we ban research, progress will be frozen in aspic and the rates will remain very low?
Mr. Thurnham : Yes, it is important to try to improve success rates. We should remember that other states in Australia have brought in legislation to allow research
Column 64
because they know how important it is. In Victoria and elsewhere, such work is permitted, and no doubt the doctors in South Australia where research has been banned use the benefits of such research. It is immoral to refuse to do research but to take advantage of the benefits of research carried out by other people.It has been argued that the drug companies are investing millions of pounds in developing contraceptive drugs. There is only one such project in this country--in Scotland--but it is much-needed work which will help people in the Third world, where there is certainly no shortage of people. I would favour developing improved contraceptive methods by this means, subject to the guidelines of the statutory licensing authority.
We have heard much scare talk about hybrids, clones and designer babies, but such talk comes from people who do not understand the limitations of the work, and these ideas are strictly banned by the guidelines which have so far been adhered to voluntarily and which, if the Bill is pased, will have statutory force when the licensing authority is set up. They remain in the science fiction arena. Hon. Members have criticised the use of the word "pre-embryo". Anyone would think that we were not allowed to invent new words in science. New descriptions are being developed in science all the time, and if the word "pre-embryo" could be used to describe the stage up to 14 days, I would find that helpful. I strongly condemn the use of the words "babies" and "children" by those on the other side of this argument, not to mention stunts such as sending out plastic foetuses, which have caused enormous offence to people in the House. I saw secretaries in the Post Office this morning in considerable distress, surrounded by these things. It was a stunt in the lowest possible taste.
I hope that I have been able to dispel some of the myths advanced by our opponents. It is true that some countries have banned research--that is most unfortunate--but I do not see why we should take lessons in morality from the Germans. I know that many other countries are looking to us to see what sort of legislation they should introduce. We should not forget that the United States, Canada, Italy, Holland, Belgium and France encourage research, and Spain and Sweden have already passed laws that will enable this work to proceed as we should like it to.
I should like to thank you, Sir Paul, for the opportunity to speak in the debate and, I hope, to make a constructive argument in favour of continuing with legislation that will allow research and of rejecting the amendments.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill) : I have been reading a great deal of material in preparation for the debate and I wish that I had had time to do more research as far back as 100 years ago, when hon. Gentleman in this House were telling Queen Victoria that they positively knew that God was against the use of painkillers when giving birth--advice that she rightly rejected. But other women at that time could have taken that advice and refused painkillers when giving birth. Such refusal now would be supported by only a tiny minority.
I make this point not in a frivolous spirit but to show that hon. Members are not qualified to advise on ethical and moral questions. Our responsibility is to frame the law in such a way as to make it possible for other adults to make their own decisions. I do not understand how hon.
Column 65
Members can say, merely because they are convinced that life begins at a particular stage, that they should impose their decision on others.It should be up to people to make up their own minds about whether to act on the opportunities that this research opens up. If they are against such research, they need not benefit from it. I have heard it argued that childless couples should accept their misfortune--that it is God's will that they be childless, so they must live with that. That is fine if they are convinced that it is God's will, but if they are convinced that God's will is nothing of the sort, and if they see that researchers can provide them with some hope by using their God-given intelligence, they should be able to choose to act on that.
The same goes for the risk of giving birth to children who will suffer appallingly from severe and painful handicaps. It might be said that couples should cope as best they can, or avoid having children. The choice to avoid having children will still be open to those who believe that research at this stage of human development is wrong ; but there are others who believe that God gave humans intelligence that can be used to create human happiness or misery. Many of the researchers themselves, far from feeling that they are doing something wicked, can believe only that they are doing positive good when they witness the happiness that they are bringing to the lives of people who suffer from these terrible problems.
It is up to the House to show some understanding. Earlier, the Father of the House said, "The buck stops here." I disagree : it does not stop in Parliament. It stops with men and women who are desperate for children but will not have them unless we allow this research to continue. The buck stops with the parents who may already have severely handicapped children, or whose children may have died after brief, painful lives. They may want the chance to have a child who is well.
We are not talking about perfecting human beings or about some sort of genetic engineering to create a perfect race. We are merely talking about the simple desire on the part of someone who has brought up and cared for a child day after day through severe illness to be given the small human happiness involved in having more children who will not suffer from the same defects.
I shall be brief because I know that many hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. I feel very deeply about the problems that have been described in numerous letters sent to me by parents. I shall outline some cases. One child a week is born with tuberous sclerosis, which affects one in 8,000 of the population. It is caused by a dominant gene defect and its effect varies widely. It produces incomplete differentiation of embryonic tissue and clumps of embryonic cells do not change totally into brain or kidney or skin or any other part of the body, which is what normally takes place. They continue to grow slowly and produce tumours in any organ of the body. They produce epilepsy and other such problems. Some 50 per cent. of the children will be severely mentally handicapped with an IQ of below 35. We are talking not about children who can almost cope with normal life and who just need a little help, but about children who can do nothing for themselves.
Sometimes there is too much easy sentimentality in the House about everyone being in favour of helping the handicapped. That is not real life. I know many people with handicaps that are nothing like as severe as the one that I have described, who feel that they receive very little
Column 66
help from society and from the House when it has the opportunity to spend public money on all sorts of necessities to help handicapped people to live a fuller life. We must recognise that some handicaps are so severe that no quality of life can be gained and the person who is suffering has a limited and extremely painful life that is often extremely short.6.30 pm
I could describe numerous illnesses that I had not even heard of before the debate came into public view a few years ago. There are more than 200 different diseases with long Latin names that all produce terrible suffering in children. The Bill is designed to create circumstances in which steps can be taken to try to ensure that a defective gene is not implanted, which will give mothers a chance to produce children with normal health. Such research can be used to help childless people to achieve that very simple and highly desirable human aim. Those of us who easily and without problems have had healthy children should attempt to show a bit of understanding and be ready to help those who have problems.
Mr. Michael Alison (Selby) : I am grateful to you, Sir Paul, for giving me this opportunity to put on record why I shall vote in favour of amendment No. 1 and against the authorisation of research into human embryos. In spite of the apparent technical complexity of the matter, the fundamental issue is clear-cut and straightforward. I am glad that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Health highlighted that primary consideration.
The simple issue is at what point in the interaction between the ovum and the sperm human life begins. Once human life has begun, leaving aside for a moment when it begins, and even if it is embryonic, can any form of experimentation on the material substance of that human life at any stage be either ethical or acceptable if it is not intended for the well-being, good and survival of that form of human life, however embryonic and elemental it may be?
I do not think that many, if any, hon. Members favour experiments on a guinea-pig basis, compulsorily sacrificing one human life for the benefit of another or more than one human life. Reference has been made to the horrific conclusions to which that road can lead. The issue turns simply on when human life begins in the sperm-ovum interaction. All questions about the merits, benefits or desirability of experiments must in principle be subordinate to that question and cannot be addressed until we have a conclusion on that fundamental issue.
I am profoundly convinced, on the evidence that I have studied, that human life starts at the moment of fertilisation. I know that that is a personal view. To those who differ from that view and who believe that human life starts a bit later, I point out right away the smallness of the time gap that divides us. At the very most, it is only 14 days into the growth of the embryo. After that no one has any doubt that a form of human life has emerged that is inviolable and sacrosanct. It is worth reminding ourselves how remote from our normal idea of human life is that entity to which we grant without question an inviolable or sacrosanct status. It is almost invisible and almost inperceptible. It is difficult to say in respect of that struggling embryonic form of elemental life, which we call human and individual at 14 days, that it is not possible for it to have had an even earlier real existence from day one.
Column 67
If there is any doubt at all about the human status of the fertilised ovum by the sperm from day one, the benefit of that doubt should be given to the potential human individual who came into existence in some shape or form at the moment of fertilisation. It is not a rebuttal of that view to say that the fertilised ovum has to undergo further development and differentiation of the sort referred to by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State when he suggested that human cells continue to develop and divide so that, for example, the placenta differentiates itself from the human individual during the first 14 days. It is not a convincing or even likely thesis to say that that determines the emergence of human life only at the moment of final differentiation before the 14th day. I shall give an illustration, although I know that an analogy is dangerous.Peeling the skin from an orange does not bring the life of an orange into existence. It brings the life of the orange into evidence or identifiability. The orange was there below the peel. I am convinced that that which is in evidence as a human embryo at day 14 is in existence from the moment of fertilisation. It is not in evidence, not identifiable, but it is there just as the orange is below the peel. I know that that is an arguable proposition and that it has been debated in the House. My overriding point is that if there is any doubt about whether the orange exists below the peel, whether the embryo exists before final differentiation takes place on day 14, the benefit of the doubt must, in principle, be given to the embryonic human individual who has been imperceptible, invisible and not in evidence but essentially, logically and potentially there from the moment of fertilisation. Leaving aside the merit or otherwise of experimentation, because I am convinced that human life begins at fertilisation, I shall be voting against experimentation on that form of human life, however embryonic and imperceptible, that has emerged at the moment of fertilisation.
Therefore, I shall be supporting the amendment and voting against the authorisation of experiments.
Mr. Mallon : This has been one of the most difficult debates for which to prepare for a considerable time. The debate has shown clearly that we all have the same problem. We have all read the same briefing documents, some of which are excellent. We have all read the same statistics, we have all put our own gloss on the statistics and we have all made our value judgments about the opinions of eminent scientists and medical people and those professionals to whom we should all listen. In effect, we are making a value judgment on the value judgments presented to us by other people. We are all trying to assess the arguments for and against something on which many people believe there simply are no arguments.
I am glad to follow the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), who crystallised the view of many hon. Members. Those views are held not only by those of a certain religious persuasion. I found jarring the suggestion of the hon. Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) that Catholics did not pass the cricket test on this issue. He may wish to withdraw that suggestion after he reads Hansard tomorrow, because people of various religious persuasions see this problem from many points of view.
Column 68
I shall be brief. I shall not draw any conclusions from the statistics, nor shall I make a value judgment on whether those doctors or scientists in favour of experimentation have more expertise or are more reliable than those against it, because that is a false argument that will lead to a false conclusion. It would also be a presumptive conclusion for anyone to draw.Like the right hon. Member for Selby, I believe that, once fertilisation takes place, we are dealing with a human entity and that destructive experimentation on that entity is the destruction of a human being. My views are rooted in that position. If that were not so, I should be faced with a serious problem because I am convinced that research and experimentation are a natural part of the development of the human condition. They are almost an essential part of the development of our lives.
Researchers could be faced with a traumatic problem if we agreed to this provision. I believe that experimentation provides results and that lessons can be learned from it and that, as experimentation progresses, a bank of information would be developed, but at what stage do experimentation and research stop being productive? At what stage does the scientist cease to gain further information from his research? There cannot be an arbitary decision that, on the 14th day, the information is no longer relevant. Therefore, those involved in research will face serious moral and legal dilemmas.
Let us assume that a man who is involved in such research and has results from his experiments firmly believes, as a scientist, that he access to a 16-day embryo, he could produce a result that would end genetic problems for thousands of people. What will he do? How will he answer to his conscience and to the law that we might write for him today? I should not like to have to face that problem, because I do not know what my answer would be, despite my ingrained view about the point at which life begins.
6.45 pm
That person will have either to stop his research immediately because the law does not allow experiments beyond 14 days, or decide to continue to, and to break the law, in the interests of humanity. If he starts to experiment with a 16-day embryo, will he go on to an 18-day embryo or a 20- day embryo? If we frame the law in this way, such a moral, professional and legal dilemma will be inevitable. Other people will have to face it. We shall not, but we may put them in a trap by what we do today.
| Next Section
| Home Page |