House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Apr 1990

Mr. Key : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mallon : I shall not give way. I was shown no great generosity by Conservative Members when I tried to intervene earlier. Once fertilisation takes place, we are dealing with a human entitly and to destroy it is to destroy part of human life. Setting an arbitrary limit of 14 days in the development of a human entity may act as a bar on research and the benefits from it, rather than helping research. For that reason, we could be unfair to further generations who might benefit from such research and to those who carry it out. Because of that, as well as my fundamental views about human life, I shall be voting for the amendment and against the provision.

Mr. David Wilshire (Spelthorne) : However we vote tonight, all of us have one shared experience. We have

Column 69

been bombarded in recent weeks by representations from constituents urging us to vote against the Bill. They have given many reasons for their opposition, but one theme has run through those

representations--that research is morally wrong. Despite careful thought and study, I reject this view and I shall be voting for research to continue. although I reject the pleas to vote against, I put it on record that I respect the sincerity and the deeply held views of my constituents, and I hope that they respect mine. I accept that they could be right and in return I hope that they, and those who agree with them, can bring themselves to accept that they could be wrong while others are right.

As others have said, moral absolutes cannot be determined simply by counting the number of letters that we have received for or against. Majority support does not make a right wrong or a wrong right, so the only way that I know to settle this issue for myself is through careful thought and, if one believes in it, through prayer. As many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate in the debate, I shall confine myself to one of the many issues about which I feel strongly. I want to say something about the distress that is being caused by those of the Bill's opponents who regularly claim that someone cannot be a proper Christian unless he or she votes against the Bill. That sort of argument is enormously hurtful and flies in the face of the unavoidable necessity of all theological certainties being channelled through fallible human interpretation. There are those of us whose faith compels us to vote in favour rather than against.

In recent months, the Bill's opponents have insisted on imposing on us all their approaches and values. I find that entirely unfair and completely unacceptable. Why, for example, should I accept that research is wrong unless I can prove it right? I find research a perfectly normal and natural thing and I see nothing fundamentally wrong with it.

My approach--I urge it on others for a change--has always been to start from the assumption that research is right and to invite critics to prove it wrong. Those who have contacted me over the past few weeks seem to have deployed three basic groups of argument to try to win the battle. They say that research is unnecessary, that it could lead to unethical activity and that it is theologically evil. If we believe that research is a good thing, the "unnecessary" argument cuts no ice. If you start from the assumption that it is right but you do not believe that it is necessary, do not do it. If you believe that it is necessary--there are plenty of experts who think just that--you should carry on.

I accept that the concern about unethical research has considerable substance. That is why I support strict controls and clear time limits. That is why I should like to serve on the Standing Committee that will consider the rest of the Bill, because that is where the arguments about controls and limits need to be thrashed out in detail.

That brings me to the third argument--the key argument--against the theological approach. If I as a layman understand the case correctly, it is said that we, because of our humanity, are different from all other life. It is said that our humanity begins at conception, as though at that moment a soul comes fluttering down to enter us. That I simply do not believe. The Bill's opponents, however, are right to ask those of us who speak like that to answer their question, "When does our humanity begin?" They are right to challenge us and to insist that we answer their question.

Column 70

I believe that we all start as human material and develop into a human person. I know when it has happened and I know when it has not. For example, all of us in the Chamber are human people, but the human eggs, sperm and pre-embryos that I have seen are not. Somewhere between the pre-embryo and the adult our human consciousness emerges and we become different. In my opinion, it is that difficult bit between the two absolutes that the Bill is all about and where we need to be looking.

I answer the Bill's moral critics thus : we start as human material, we develop a mind and at the end only the spirit is left. That is my understanding of what St. Paul taught--we are body, mind and spirit. Surely we were given minds to take care of our bodies. Surely the spirit exists to improve our minds. Our humanity, therefore, is a developing progression. It is not a tap that is turned on and off. Thus I see no moral or theological objection to strictly controlled research. Indeed, I see good moral and theological reasons in favour of it. Research offers help to many, and hope to even more. Handled with care and compassion, research could be yet another gift from God.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood) : I wish to take part in the debate to rehearse the conflicting interests in my constituency. King's College hospital runs an in vitro fertilisation clinic and it has a relatively high sucess rate. I have been privileged to witness almost all aspects of the operation--the harvesting of eggs, the eggs which have been fertilised and so on. I have received a certain amount of lobbying and I have taken an interest in the work of the hospital. I have seen that work, but on the other hand there is extensive lobbying--not exclusively by Roman Catholics- -against the Bill's provisions.

Were it not for the moral argument, which has been rehearsed, I think that everyone would agree that the Bill is necessary. No one suggests that there should be uncontrolled research. Once we have disposed of the moral argument, therefore, the necessity for the Bill is there.

How do the opponents advance their arguments to us? At the heart of the central argument is the issue of when life begins and when the soul, as it were, has entered the body. That is a metaphysical matter. A lord of appeal in ordinary said in a case involving a spot-the-ball contest that metaphysics is the art of proving what one believed in the first place by instinct. I am sure that all of us find it difficult to argue a person into or out of what he or she believes on first principles.

It is difficult to say that once the egg has been fertilised there is no form of life there which is capable of becoming a human being. In a way, the 14-day rule is squeamish. It provides an alibi for saying that things can be done before 14 days that may not be done thereafter. I find it difficult to quarrel with the argument advanced by Roman Catholics and other opponents to the Bill that there is life once fertilisation takes place.

Let me say, however, that I support the Bill and experimentation. But when it comes to argument about life, I find it a sophisticated argument to try to distinguish between pre-14 days and post-14 days. I understand the argument about the cells beginning to divide in the placenta to produce what will eventually become a foetus. If we argue about whether life is there or not, it is almost incontrovertible that there is a form of life once fertilisation takes place. That is something about which we

Column 71

must make our own decision, but I think that the issue was well argued by the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon). I do not find attractive some of the arguments advanced by the opponents. They say that they will not tolerate destruction, but in reality they do. If there are a number of fertilised eggs, the eggs that are not to be used for implantation will not be capable of having a viable life and will be destroyed. There is no getting away from that. The argument about destruction does not seem to have much merit in that respect.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Duffy) said that he would not tolerate the destruction of the embryo. Surely even he is willing to contemplate the destruction of an embryo which has 69 chromosomes, for example, as against 46. When I have examined fertilised eggs under the microscope at King's College hospital, it has not been unusual to find an embryo with 69 chromosomes. Such an embryo could be implanted and it might be capable of growing for six or seven months, only to be aborted by nature itself. I do not think that my hon. Friend is saying that there are no circumstances in which the embryo should be destroyed. At the end of the day, it comes back to the question of morality --when or whether life has begun--

Mr. Duffy : It is also whether our approach to and treatment of an embryo is in the interests of that embryo--whether it is in the ultimate good of the embryo.

7 pm

Mr. Fraser : Clearly, if there is to be experimentation, it cannot be to the benefit of that embryo. It is for the benefit of other embryos and other people. We cannot dodge that.

I can find no argument that sustains itself, other than the argument about life. The opponents of research are prepared to compromise on other matters and will tolerate destruction under certain circumstances.

I represent a multiracial constituency. Many people of Caribbean or African origin have sickle cell anaemia children. It is a genetic disease and it requires two people carrying the appropriate genes to produce a sickle cell anaemia child. Many such people would prefer to have the opportunity to choose whether to have a child that might die in crisis, often early in life. They might have a happier life if they could choose to avoid that happening. I think that there is great attraction in experiments that might prevent such problems. I mention that disease because it is the most prevalent in my constituency. I shall not cite the range of genetic diseases referred to by other hon. Members.

I have considered, and I appreciate, the uses to which experimentation can be put. I find one argument extraordinarily convincing. At Christmas I visited King's College hospital and talked to the parents of children born by in vitro fertilisation. I accept that the success rate is not high-- about 13 per cent.--and we all wish that it were higher. Any form of legitimate research that could bring that about would have my support and, I believe, the support of most people.

Mr. Roger Stott (Wigan) : I was present at the birth of my son, Daniel, last Tuesday morning. Anyone who has been present at his child's birth will know the immense joy

Column 72

that it brings to mothers and fathers. I shall vote for the Bill tonight because I do not want to deny anyone the opportunity to experience the immense joy and pleasure that I experienced last Tuesday.

Mr. Fraser : I agree with my hon. Friend.

I met hundreds of parents at King's College hospital. Of course, the majority would not have had implantation because the failure rate is about 85 per cent. However, there was a sense of intense love, devotion and achievement among the parents. Those are the same sort of people who would have to give their consent to any experiment on an embryo. Some would not give that consent, and they would have every right to withhold it. They are the people who make the choice and who lay down the rules about what will happen to the spare embryos--whether they should simply be destroyed, waste away or perish, whatever word is used, or whether there should be experiments within the ambit of the Bill and under the control of a committee. I am prepared to back their judgment, knowing that nature, of its own accord, experiments and destroys. I am prepared to support the Bill because the decisions come not from scientific madmen who want to experiment for the sake of experimentation, but from people whose decisions are born out of love and compassion.

There is, of course, the first principles argument. I shall end with a quotation from another leading jurist, Chief Justice Warren Burger, who said that the sign of intelligence is the ability to doubt first principles. I am prepared to back both the intelligence and the compassion of those whom I met at King's College hospital.

Sir David Price (Eastleigh) : The hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. Fraser), and even more my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), took me back to the old metaphysical question of animation or ensoulment that has taxed philosophers from the time of Aristotle. To put it more simply, when did I begin--or for that matter, Sir Paul, when did you begin? What we can agree is that I did not spring fully armed from the head of Zeus, like Pallas Athena, and nor did my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State.

The question, "When did I begin?" is not simply an interesting philosophical speculation. Certainly it was recognised by Lady Warnock and her colleagues. I wish to bring the Committee's attention to what was said in the Warnock report. I do not apologise for quoting from paragraph 11.11, which goes to the heart of the matter. It states :

"It is obvious that the central objection to the use of human embryos as research subjects is a fundamental objection, based on moral principles. Put simply, the main argument is that the use of human embryos for research is morally wrong because of the very fact that they are human, and much of the evidence submitted to us strongly supports this. The human embryo is seen as having the same status as a child or an adult, by virtue of its potential for human life. The right to life is held to be the fundamental human right, and the taking of human life on this view is always abhorrent. To take the life of the innocent is an especial moral outrage. The first consequence of this line of argument is that, since an embryo used as a research subject would have no prospect of fulfilling its potential for life, such research should not be permitted."

In paragraph 11.12, the arguments are developed. The report states :

"Since it is unethical to carry out any research, harmful or otherwise, on humans without first obtaining their informed

Column 73

consent, it must be equally unacceptable to carry out research on a human embryo, which by its very nature, cannot give consent." That is the fundamental point and it takes us back to the basic question, "When did I begin?"

It is relevant to note that the Greek philosophers based their metaphysical speculations upon the known biology of the time. That was also true of scholastic thought in the middle ages. Indeed, Thomas Aquinas's biology was straight Aristotelian. There was little progress in biology during the intervening 1,600 years. I mention that to emphasise the point that good metaphysics and good science not only need not be in conflict, but should be in harmony. We must therefore consider what the biologists tell us about the origins of life. I shall again quote the Warnock report, and what appear to be the key words :

"At fertilisation the egg and sperm unite to become a single cell. The nucleus of this cell contains the chromosomes derived from both parents. This single cell is totipotential, as from it develop all the different types of tissue and organs that make up the human body, as well as tissues that become the placenta and foetal membranes during intra-uterine development."

That is my answer to the hon. Member for Barking (Ms. Richardson) and her pre-embryos. There is a strong prima facie case in favour of the argument that human life begins at the point of fertilisation, and in that I agree my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison).

The Warnock committee as a whole also viewed that argument with considerable sympathy, which is why it recommended that the embryo of the human species should be accorded some protection in law--which, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State fairly pointed out, it does not have at present. Nevertheless, for no very obvious biological on philosophical reason, Warnock rejected the now traditional view that human life begins at conception and settled instead for 14 or 15 days after fertilisation and the emergence of the so-called primitive streak.

The Warnock committee was obviously attracted by the research argument, declaring that the measure of respect given to the human embryo "cannot be absolute" and must be weighed against the benefits arising from research. It added that that argument rests in part on the doctrine known to philosophers as double effect--an act that would be wrong if chosen for its own sake may be justified if it occurs as the by-product of some other well -intentioned act. Against that doctrine of double effect, I remind the Committee of two other doctrines well known not only to philosophers but to the ordinary man--including that famous gentleman on the top of a Clapham omnibus. They are : the ends do not justify the means ; and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

My right hon. and learned Friend dwelt mainly on the research arguments, but if the basic argument of origin is correct, the research arguments fall away and need not be examined. I could detain the Committee a considerable time in doing so, but in the interests of other right hon. and hon. Members, I shall not. However, there is an argument to the effect that, at the earliest stage of development, the embryo is only a minute group of living cells, smaller than a full stop in Hansard --so what is all the fuss about?

That argument implies that the early embryo is not a human being, and reminds me of the Victorian maid's classic defence of her pregnancy. Right hon. and hon.

Column 74

Members may recall the famous Punch cartoon, in which a pregnant maid defends herself before her stern mistress with the immortal words,

"Well, Ma'am--it's only a little one, isn't it?"

That argument does not convince me for one moment, for the simple reason given in the Warnock report--that at the moment of fertilisation, the egg and sperm unite to become a single cell, and that that single cell is "totipotential."

In layman's terms, at the moment of fertilisation the single cell has the complete genetic DIY kit to develop into a healthy human being. Therefore, I find it extremely difficult to accept the Warnock report's majority recommendation that the primitive streak about 15 days after fertilisation marks the beginning of individual identity in the embryo's development. I am driven to the inescapable conclusion that human personality begins at conception and that we must proceed on that basis. In common with the author of the Warnock committee's minority report, I urge right hon. and hon. Members to give that view the benefit of any lingering doubts that they may entertain.

However, I put it to the Committee--and particularly to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, as a lawyer--that for the purposes of the law, conception could be defined as occurring at the moment of implantation rather than at fertilisation. My reason for offering the Committee that definition at this stage is not metaphysical or historical-- although I could deploy arguments on both grounds--but entirely practical.

To my knowledge, there is no simple, non-intrusive method of knowing whether fertilisation has occurred. One must wait until the process of implantation takes place at about the sixth or seventh day before the normal pregnancy test is effective. That process can be simply described. When the fertilised egg becomes implanted in the uterus, the tissue round the chorion produces a certain hormone, which passes into the mother's bloodstream and is excreted in her urine, where it can be detected. That is the basis of normal pregnancy testing. It is simple and non-obtrusive.

I understand that no such test is available at the stage of ova fertilisation. For that reason, I submit that we should consider conception as having taken place at the point of implantation rather than at fertilisation. I have tabled amendments to clause 1 to achieve that purpose. It would not be in order for me to develop the arguments in favour of them this evening, but I believe that it is proper to refer to them.

The amendments would have the effect of stopping all embryo research after conception. Therefore, it is appropriate to know how conception is to be defined in law. If the amendments fall, obviously the distinction between fertilisation and implantation would be irrelevant. If they succeed, the point that I seek to establish becomes highly relevant. I offer it for the Committee's consideration when determining whether to accept or reject the amendments relating to embryo research.

7.15 pm

Mr. Daffydd Wigley (Caernarfon) : I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in the debate. My mind goes back five years, to the time when Enoch Powell introduced his Unborn Children (Protection) Bill, which was accompanied by a period of considerable trauma for my family. Right hon. and hon. Members will know that we lost two boys in late 1984 and early 1985. The hon.

Column 75

Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) spoke of the joy of being present for the birth of his own child last week. I had the honour of being present at the birth of our second boy, but I was also present at his death and that of our eldest boy. Therefore, the debate has considerable meaning for my wife and myself. I believe that our feelings are shared by countless thousands of people who have faced the problems of genetic abnormalities and of dealing with the likelihood of bringing into the world a child who in some cases may not only be handicapped but appallingly handicapped, self-mutilating, or in immense pain, and doomed to an early death.

Mothers who have endured that experience once may find that they cannot face doing so a second time. Unless such mothers can be assured of being assisted to give birth to a non-handicapped child, they may rather not have another child at all. Some may proceed on a hit-or-miss basis, hoping against hope that the handicap concerned will not manifest itself in their second or third child.

Science offers a chance of helping such families. We have heard in the past few days of breakthroughs at Hammersmith hospital and of the work of Professor Winston and others. There is the amazing possibility that it could be feasible at an early stage in pregnancy to detect whether embryos are abnormal, and we must ensure that families wanting to take advantage of those new techniques are able to do so, and are allowed to make the choice of avoiding the risk of perpetuating a handicap into the next generation.

No one is forcing those families to take that course. Anyone who objects to such techniques on conscientious or other grounds is entitled to avoid them. The question is whether Parliament has a right to tell people who could benefit from embryo research, "No, you cannot benefit from it. You must live with the problems that exist within your family."

What is true of genetic handicaps is true also of those who are infertile. I cannot imagine any greater frustration than that which affects one couple in eight in this country--the problem of infertility, and of trying again and again to start a family but being unable to do so. The past 10 or 15 years have seen magnificent breakthroughs, which have enabled 4,000 children to be born as a consequence of IVF research. If no further embryo research is allowed, the knowledge that we already have would perpetuate, and many families would still benefit from it. However, the level of success in IVF is still regrettably low at only 13 per cent.

Countless thousands of people are still not enjoying the benefits of research, and if the kind of restriction being debated tonight had been on the statute book 20 years ago, it would not have been possible for the 4,000 children of whom I spoke to enter the world. Therefore, if we stop research now we are stopping hope for many infertile couples.

I accept that there are many methods of research other than destructive embryo research, which is the main issue that we are discussing. I also accept that those other avenues must be explored. Every stone must be turned to seek a solution. When people such as Professor Edwards at Bourne hall, who has done such sterling work to

Column 76

develop those techniques, tell us that they cannot continue to improve the techniques without the ability to undertake such research, I accept it.

When Professor Winston from Hammersmith hospital tells us that without the right to do embryo research he would not have been able to achieve the successes that he announced last week, I believe what he says. Those medical scientists talk with total integrity and honesty. In humility, we should ask ourselves whether we should be challenging them in this way.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves (Hyndburn) : Does the hon. Gentleman accept that Professor Edwards does not want to stop at 14 days?

Mr. Wigley : The Bill draws the line at 14 days, on the basis of the research undertaken by the Warnock commission, and its report. We have heard some very good speeches tonight, for example, from the hon. Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) and from the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison), although I think they will be taking opposing views to me into the Lobby tonight. However, I respect their view absolutely, because the basic question is when we perceive that human life begins. The merits of research are a secondary question. If we believe, as some hon. Members do, that the pre-embryo should have full human status, it leads to all sorts of consequences. Many hon. Members do not believe that that is the case.

When the Father of the House spoke a few moments ago about a doctor killing his patient, some of us felt considerable offence that such an accusation-- that some hon. Members are in support of murder--should have been made. We consider that the sperm and the egg coming together are only two of three prerequisites for on-going human life. The sperm is human material and so is the egg, and when they come together they have human potential. I acknowledge that potential for human life, but it can be fulfilled only when implantation takes place at between seven and 14 days. It is complete at the 14th day and that is where the line is drawn in the Bill and in the recommendations of Warnock. It is at that stage that the primitive streak appears.

Before the 14th day, the embryo may split to form twins. Therefore, individuality--which means the same as indivisibility--cannot be established before 14 days because of the possibility of splitting. Also the nervous system has not developed by the 14th day. Only from 14 days onwards can we say with some assurance that we may have a single human being developing into a born child. For that reason the line is being drawn at 14 days.

As we have recently heard, there can be tremendous benefits from the research, in overcoming genetic handicaps and infertility. If we decide to abandon that research, we are closing the door on the hopes of countless thousands of infertile couples and families who face the burden of genetic abnormality.

Every hon. Member, when considering how he or she will vote, must think not only of their own consciences but of the impact of the Bill on constituents who have enormous burdens to carry and who have to live with enormous frustration. I hope to goodness that we follow the course taken in another place a few weeks ago, and that we allow research to continue.

Mrs. Currie : It is now 20 years since this type of research started, 12 years since the first IVF baby and eight

Column 77

years since the Department of Health first asked the Warnock committee to sit. In that time there has probably been the most thorough discussion of any issue that I can recall and it has been extremely valuable.

As a result of such discussion, many issues have been clarified by the passage of time. We now know that it is possible to produce healthy babies by IVF. Around the world there are now thousands of such babies. We cannot unwish them and say that they should not exist. We now have no doubt that if research continues techniques will develop to improve the success rate of IVF. We also know that it is possible to police effectively such research and the establishments where it takes place. That policing has been effective on a voluntary basis. How much better it will be if policing and supervision are carried out on a statutory basis. We now know that it is possible to identify the genes carrying genetic diseases and more of those genes are identified every year. That opens up the spectre of genetic manipulation at some time in the future.

We know, as their Lordships in the debate on 7 December did not, that embryonic biopsy is possible and that the sex of an embryo can be determined three days after conception, so that those families with sex- linked congenital diseases can look forward to bearing a healthy child and some such families in this country are already looking forward to that.

In the chapter in the Warnock report about possible future developments, those developments were still way in the future. However, they are no longer speculation or science fiction and we must legislate.

I have always held the view that we should encourage medical research which can benefit mankind, particularly that which can improve our health and the health of our children.

The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill, (Mrs. Fyfe), who has now left the Chamber, mentioned that many medical advances were originally regarded as unethical--for example, painkillers in childbirth. Debates in the House about whether it was ethical to permit women to avoid Adam's curse and to have their children without pain were symptomatic of that. Many of us feel very thankful that Queen Victoria said, "Rubbish," and clung to the chloroform. Similarly, that was the case with many debates about contraception. Although many people still have strong feelings on that subject, millions of men and women in this country have taken advantage of scientific advances in contraception and will continue to do so. Organ transplants are another example. Hon. Members should look at the debates about corneal transplants that took place in the House in the 1950s, and whether they were ethical and part of the will of God. We can see how attitudes have changed. Research on embryos is not dissimilar and the day will come when for most of us it will not be a controversial subject, and its achievements will be taken for granted.

Hon. Members on both sides, from all sorts of political and religious backgrounds, have said that they are opposed not to research but to destructive research. That is like saying that the tree is welcome but the seed is not. How does one justify the thousands of failed experiments that eventually lead to success? How can we prevent and make illegal the thousands more failures to come, which will improve the chances of success? If we accept the successful technique and reject the failure in which the

Column 78

embryo perishes, how can we tell in advance which technique it will be? Science has always been a hit and miss affair. It cannot guarantee success in advance.

The argument that people are not opposed to research, only to destructive research, stems from the belief that the embryo is an unborn child. I do not share that belief. The intellectually consistent position for those who hold such a belief is to vote against research.

I shall try not to cross swords on the ethical and religious issues. People have to make up their own minds as to whether the conceptus--the blob of cells some of which will become membrane, some placenta to be discarded, some brain, hand or eye--is merely a blob of cells or a human child ab initio, with rights and privileges to be protected. For me it is a blob of cells.

As the Royal Society says, it is not a question of size. What is at issue is the degree of cellular organisation of the conceptus. It follows that research on it up to 14 days, as laid down in the legislation and suggested by Warnock, is not an ethical but a practical matter.

I would much rather that research be done in this country under the National Health Service, where it can be controlled and where its benefits are available to people from every kind of financial background, than for it to begin elsewhere, as it no doubt will, and to be carried out by less scrupulous people. Indeed, the one research project that was declined by the interim licensing authority is now being carried out abroad in a country where there is no control, and there are many such countries.

We should also remember the point made by Baroness Warnock in the debate in the other place on 7 December. She explained that the pre-14 day embryo-- whatever one calls it--actually has no rights at present. Those who vote in favour of research tonight want to create some rights and protection. We are not in a position in which the embryo has full protection which some wicked people want to erode. The embryo has no protection at all in this country. The Bill seeks to create some protection for the embryo and that is particularly true of the research clause.

7.30 pm

If we accept, as I do, that we are dealing with a blob of cells, that is not the end of the ethical issues. Rather, I believe that that is where the ethical issues start. At that point we must consider the purpose of the research and what might be possible as a result of it. We can help women who are infertile and want to bear a healthy child. That is marvellous, and research in that context has an ethical purpose. Women might be relieved of the misery of miscarriage as a result of research. I have been through a miscarriage and I tell the House that that is a terrible experience. I cannot begin to imagine the misery experienced by women who have to endure miscarriages over and over again. Trying to assist those families is also an ethical purpose.

Families carrying the gene of handicap may have the chance of healthy children as a result of research. How can we deny them that chance? Would it not be a good thing if the haemophilia gene was to vanish and if muscular dystrophy became a thing of the past? Those are ethical issues as well. We do not devalue handicapped people when we say that we want to see an end to handicap. We are not concerned with some kind of search-and- destroy mission.

Of course, most handicapped people would rather have been born than not. That is really the issue for tomorrow's

Column 79

debate. However, my guess is that most of them would rather have been born without their handicap, and that is the central issue for today's debate. Most parents carrying defective genes would rather not pass on defects to the next generation.

I am not just speaking here of the most obvious diseases or the tragic diseases that have been described so graphically and in such moving terms tonight. I know that I speak for thousands of asthmatics when I say that if and when it is possible to avoid passing on our asthma to our children--we must remember that asthma is a killer disease for many children--we will all give thanks to God and to those who carry out research which may some day make that possible.

Mr. Burt : With regard to the genetic disorders that my hon. Friend has just mentioned and that she hopes will not recur in future, will she admit that embryo research, as such, will have nothing to do with the cure of those diseases? Research may prevent people from being born with those diseases, but it will do nothing to cure those diseases and that has been accepted by those who support embryo research.

Mrs. Currie : I have two responses for my hon. Friend. First, until we carry out the research, we do not know. Secondly, there is a distinction between prevention and cure. Research certainly offers increasingly, day by day, the possibility of prevention. The same ethical issues are raised and I am very worried about genetic manipulation. However, there is no doubt that the research that we take for granted today--that is, that we can produce healthy children in a test tube--was regarded as science fiction 20 years ago. The research to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury, North (Mr. Burt) refers, which seems science fiction today, will appear run of the mill to our grandchildren.

Mr. Couchman : Does my hon. Friend agree that the causes of some diseases are so mysterious at the moment that we cannot hope to know whether they are genetic? If research is banned as a result of our voting tonight, that may close down the avenue of research into those diseases, the effect of which can be just as terrible as some of those that have already been mentioned.

Mrs. Currie : My hon. Friend has a great point. I am hesitant about fishing expeditions. I believe that research must be clearly thought out and have a clear purpose. It must be clearly demonstrated to the statutory licensing authority that the techniques to be used have some chance of success. That is what will happen if we vote for research tonight.

However, I am as worried as other hon. Members about the ends to which research might be put. All research that leads to good ends could in the wrong hands be turned to evil. That is why I want research in this country. That is why I want to vote for strict controls and for the statutory licensing authority. That is why I regard the research as different. The law must be involved because the research is too important to be left to the doctors. I hope that the controls set out in the Bill will be accepted.

If we accept that good can result from research, we should accept the methods that produce the good results. If we will the ends, we must will the means. However few might be the occasions when the end justifies the means, there are no occasions when we can hope and pray for the

Column 80

ends and not vote for the means. We cannot undo the knowledge that we already have. We have heard biblical metaphors all evening. I will offer one more. We cannot act as if the children about whom we are concerned do not exist. We have eaten of the tree of knowledge and been given free will to decide how to use it. We cannot push Adam and Eve back into the Garden of Eden and tell them, "Don't touch." I am certain that the research is based on the highest ethical principles. I cannot vote to make those researchers criminals. I cannot vote to put an end to that work. For me, that would be wrong. I can vote to ensure that the research is tightly supervised and put to the highest purposes--that is, the improved health of the people of this country and of the world. That is how I shall vote tonight.

Mrs. Rosie Barnes (Greenwich) : It has finally been established in the Chamber, and I hope among the public, that we are talking about experimentation on a minute cluster of identical cells that are totally undifferentiated--one is exactly the same as another. As they reproduce, they do so in identical forms. Some of them will form the embryo, some the membrane and some the placenta.

Some hon. Members may have seen a placenta. It is certainly human tissue and it is certainly very useful. However, there would be considerable debate as to whether it had a human soul. It is not until after the 14-day period that any differentiation of the cells occurs. There is no brain, nervous system or recognisable organ before then. We are talking about human tissue--not, in my opinion, a human being.

I want to reiterate a point that has been mentioned during this debate. One of the commonly used methods of contraception in this country--the coil-- causes the demise of embryos at 14 days, and beyond, each month during the woman's menstrual cycle. The coil prevents an embryo from being implanted in the wall of the uterus and developing into a foetus. That is already legal and common practice in this country. We should keep that firmly in perspective when we vote tonight. The potential for a human being lies within the cell to which I have referred. It is as though the computer programme exists, but it has not yet been triggered.

The significance of 14 days has been discussed at some length and some people are suspicious as to whether 14 days is just one of many slippery slopes. I agree that at that stage the embryo is no less alive or potentially human than it would be at 13 days or 15 days. By definition, it has been agreed that the process of fertilisation and the evolving of a human being is a gradual and continual process. I shall quote the Archbishop of York, who spoke in the other place, because he reminds us of what many people with strong Christian beliefs feel about the issue. Referring to the development of an embryo, he said :

"The same is true in the development of individual lives. They begin with chemistry and they reach their fulfilment in mystery. There is no doubt about the depth, wonder, moral worth and religious significance of personhood, but the transitions on the way to it are not clean, clear and decisive, despite the tremendous significance attached by some people to the moment of fertilisation. Biologically speaking we are looking at a continuous process. The philosophical mistake in the belief that full and instantaneous human rights are somehow created in the moment of conception lies in the surreptitious assumption that in those very early stages of embryonic life there is some real personal entity to which our moral language can apply."--[ Official Report, House of Lords, 7 December 1989 ; Vol. 513, c. 1020-1021.]

Next Section

Home Page