House of Commons Hansard Debates for 23 Apr 1990

Column 96

but in those malevolent roles which mere man exhibits when presented with great power, whether political or scientific. The potential for abuse is ever-present here, as with all science, and the master-race concepts which inspired the appalling abuses of genetic engineering to which the Father of the House referred earlier have haunted Europe for half a century.

The more awe-inspiring the scientific achievement, the more terrifying the potential for abuse. The discovery of DNA, the very blueprint of life, is certainly awe-inspiring, and when the full map of the human genome is known, probably within a decade, we shall have passed through a phase of civilisation as significant as, if not more significant than, that which distinguished the age of Galileo from that of Copernicus, or that of Einstein from that of Newton. Its political significance is almost beyond our comprehension. We have crossed a boundary of unprecedented importance.

This analysis leads me to my first and most important conclusion : there is no going back. I would add to that : there should be no going back. Any attempt to do so would represent a triumph of obscurantist dogma over human achievement and aspiration. Our general conclusion must surely be that the advancement of science, on which our whole civilisation is based and now depends, cannot be stopped because we have suddenly discerned a universe of unimagined potential complexity, danger and challenge. The question tonight is whether ther can or should be an exception to this generalisation. Are the processes of human reproduction, particularly in the early stages of conception, to be declared by law a no-go area for science? Assuming that the case for that was made, three immediate questions arise. First, could such a ban be enforced? Secondly, on what grounds could it be argued that other no-go areas should not be created? Thirdly, can we predict the full consequences of a closed door on the frontiers of human knowledge?

Dame Elaine-Kellett-Bowman : Does my hon. Friend accept that a go area for science would imply a no-go area for morality? Some of us attach great importance to that, because we believe that science is not the be-all and end-all of life.

9 pm

Sir Ian Lloyd : I accept that science is not the be-all and end-all of life, but nor is morality. The complexities of life arise from the conflicts between these two important sets of criteria.

The answer to my first question is an unequivocal no. There is no way to enforce it. Even in Britain, we could not police every laboratory dealing with molecular biology. Even if we could, that would merely inflame curiosity.

To the second question, the answer is equally unequivocal. As science takes us nearer to the fundamentals of creation, whether through the outward reach of the Hubble telescope which is to be launched into space next week, or the inward reach of the scanning tunnel microscope, revealing for the first time the secrets of the living cell, we shall be presented with greater potential for good and evil, greater powers of intervention and greater challenges to orthodox dogmas of all kinds--religious, scientific and political. Close one door and fear of the future will have triumphed over all that the rational mind has achieved, from Aristotle to the discoverer of the

Column 97

polymerase chain reaction, a man by the name of Kray Mullis, about whom the House may not have heard but of whom future generations will certainly know.

As Alfred North Whitehead once said, there is

"a Nemesis which awaits upon those who deliberately avoid avenues of knowledge".

That applies both to the general case and to the specific example. I shall now attempt to deal briefly with the special case before us tonight--embryo research. Like most hon. Members, I have read with care the arguments based on the sacredness of human life. No one would dispute the concern, conviction or skill with which these have been presented in the papers sent to hon. Members and in the House this evening.

However, as I read my science, nature has endowed life with two unique characteristics. The first is continuity. The human genome is, among other things, a map of that continuity. The formation of the conceptus is merely the point at which that continuity is ensured by the injection of genetic diversity. It happens, possibly, a few hundred million times a day. If the world is adding to its population daily a city the size of London, human survival is not threatened by a failure of that mechanism. The very success rate can properly be regarded as a threat to the planet, and this despite the fact that millions of embryos do not survive.

The second characteristic is prodigality. Nature is prodigal in this area on the grandest scale, especially but not exclusively with our species. I do not believe for one moment that research into the human embryo will ever interfere significantly with that prodigality unless man discovers that the survival of our species requires a restraint in population growth that we can achieve in no other way. The elevation of the human conceptus into some sort of cult object is a somewhat artificial construction. The human race will not destroy itself by under-breeding. Nor will it take serious risks with its genetic endowment merely because it has improved its understanding of, and capacity to influence, that endowment.

The very opposite may be true. Tragically, that endowment is often gravely impaired. We have heard some moving examples of that today. We know little of the reasons for the impairment. We know a great deal about the tragic consequences for afflicted individuals and families. Until recently, we have all been subject to the lottery of our genetic endowment. Now, over an ever-broadening horizon of knowledge and technique, related substantially, if not wholly, to embryo research, prevention has become a dramatic possibility. Here again, I enter a word of caution that is not mine but that of J. H. Edwards :

"The nature of genetic lesions and the scale and variability of genetic material are such that we cannot assume that our remote descendants will have the competence to launder the genome to remove blemishes. If they have, they may not wish to live within the ethical and behavioural framework within which this is possible. Selection against multiple minor lesions would be so inefficient that it would involve either a minority of conceptusses surviving induced abortion or the majority of conceptions being in vitro".

Mr. Edwards is right, and who are we to suggest otherwise? We are walking hopefully in the scientific foothills of a gigantic mountain range. Hitherto, man has had no option but to come to terms with a serious burden of genetic impairment, but now he can look ahead, perhaps a long

Column 98

way, to its eventual elimination. If the House will permit me, I seek reinforcement for my conclusion from Alfred North Whitehead. He reminded us that

"successful organisms modify their environment so as to assist one another."

We have recently discovered that among man's most significant environments is his genetic code. For us to foreswear the assistance which science can provide in modifying that code to the advantage of the human race would be an indefensible abdication of responsibility. It would cross the portcullis of this place with a most sinister and destructive bar.

It was once said of Spinoza that he was drunk with God. There is, I accept, an equal danger that modern man can become drunk with science. If I am compelled to choose, as we are by this measure tonight, I have no doubt which form of inebriation I prefer--even if, as I suspect, they are not mutually exclusive.

Several Hon. Members rose --

The Chairman : Order. Twelve hon. Members are seeking to catch my eye and there remain 85 minutes of debating time. The arithmetic is obvious. To reduce the disappointment of not being called to participate in the debate, I appeal for brief speeches.

Mr. Hind : I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in the debate, Mr. Walker, and I shall be brief.

We are debating an issue that attracts strong feelings. Like many other hon. Members, I have received many letters on the subject. I also received a petition signed by 800 constituents urging me to vote for amendment No. 1. At 7 o'clock this evening, one of my constituents felt that she had to send me a telephone message that she is against embryo research. That is the sort of feeling that the issue attracts.

I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Havant (Sir I. Lloyd) that those of us who will be voting for amendment No. 1 are in favour of research. We feel, however, that there needs to be some recognition of the limitations on research and a recognition of when life begins. Those issues lie at the root of the problems. My hon. Friend talked about the foothills of the gigantic mountain range of scientific research. I say to him and to all Members of this place that there must be signposts on those foothills, and that is exactly what amendment No. 1 will provide.

Science cannot be the be-all and end-all ; there must be control. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) said, we must decide fundamentally when life begins. For me, the essential part of life is when the ovum and sperm join at the moment of conception, whether that is inside the womb or outside in the case of IVF. It seems that it is an insult to common sense to suggest that there can be a 14-day gap from that moment during which some hon. Members wish to allow research to take place. It is being said that there is some sort of limbo in which life does not exist. Life must begin at the moment of conception, and from that point it must be respected and, therefore, protected. We must give guidelines to the law. As a lawyer, I can tell the Committee that there is no specific definition of when life begins. Voting for amendment No. 1 will lay down a definition of where we the law-makers, supported by scientific evidence, believe that life begins.

Once that has been laid down, it can be followed by a series of protections for the unborn child. I do not accept

Column 99

that the fertilised embryo is, for the first 14 days, merely a cluster of undifferentiated cells. It is the source of life from which life grows and it must be respected as part of life. It is not good enough for hon. Members to say that in the gap from day one to day 14 nothing happens, that it does not exist, and that in some way it is a pre-embryo that has no life, no personality, no existence. That is nothing more than an excuse for those who support research to justify what they have done and what they intend to do in the future under the Bill.

As opponents of the Bill have said, is the 14-day limit just the beginning? Will it be 16 days in two years' time and then 18 days? As the frontiers of science march forward and we discover other areas of research, will it end here? We must stand firm and give a lead. We must give a definition and provide a framework for the future, both for the law and for science. It is our duty to establish that, and no one else will take on that duty. Although we are laymen, it is a duty that we must accept.

We must consider what embryo research has achieved over the past four years. In contrast with non-embryo research, it has achieved little. There have been major developments in cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy, sickle cell anaemia and Down's syndrome. That is where the major achievements have taken place. If we were to take away embryo research, we should be only partially closing the door on research in those areas. We would be doing so for sound moral reasons because we would be protecting life, providing definition to it and giving a framework of morality to what we are doing. Those of us who respect life will recognise that it is important to do that. The pro-research group Progress has admitted that

"research using human embryos is not and never has been concerned with the treatment of genetic or chromosomal abnormalities." I am proud to say that I have two healthy children, but we struggled to have them. I am not prepared to say that I will bury the ethos of life so that others may find it easier. I struggled, but I accept that it was worth while. I know the pain that parents suffer to have children, but it is worth while. In vitro fertilisation is not outlawed by the Bill. Many methods of studying infertility are still open to research and many of them have achieved results. I am a Christian and, like many hon. Members, I put the Christian view. I stress that there are alternative methods of research-- Mr. Couchman rose --

Mr. Hind : My hon. Friend knows that, in normal circumstances, I would give way to him. He may have the opportunity to speak later. There are many alternative avenues of research into the problems of handicap and infertility. By opening the door tonight, we shall only encourage further research in areas where major successes have already been achieved. I urge the Committee to vote in favour of amendment No. 1 and against the Bill as drafted.

9.15 pm

Mr. David Blunkett (Sheffield, Brightside) : I speak with greater diffidence than usual, because I have no absolutes to offer. We seek the balance of reason, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Mrs. Wise) that

Column 100

we must be cautious in our appraisal of scientific claims and of the suggestion that science and progress automatically go hand in hand.

At the root of tonight's debate is the religious belief held by those who oppose clause 11 as drafted--that life begins before implantation in the wall of the uterus and therefore that the cluster has life in its own right. Those who hold that belief will feel instinctively and absolutely that they should oppose embryo research.

Despite the fact that it is impossible to convince such people to vote in favour of embryo research, it is wrong of right hon. and hon. Members who share their view to raise the spectre of Dr. Mengele. To suggest that trying to monitor, regulate and otherwise properly control embryo research is in some way unacceptable is to turn logic on its head. It is important to regulate, control, monitor and to place parameters on the extent to which science can tread in areas about which right hon. and hon. Members cannot be certain, and so get a grip on the anxieties and concerns that are shared by all right hon. and hon. Members, and which are the reason for their presence tonight.

I agree that embryo research is only a small part of the scientific investigation that is necessary to tackle the problems of infertility and genetic disabilities--in particular, the degenerative diseases that cause so much suffering not only to those who contract them but their families and friends. They must often endure the consequences of those handicaps in the most destructive circumstances, in which society washes its hands of its responsibilities and leaves to their own devices those who are least able to cope. I know of families who struggled to receive support from their communities and who rely on perhaps a handful of individuals, or on only one or two persons, to see them through their moments of crisis.

I have received more correspondence on this issue, as have other right hon. and hon. Members, than anything other than the subject on which I have a primary responsibility as an Opposition spokesman. I tried to consider carefully the often conflicting balance of scientific evidence, and I have reached the conclusion that not believing--as I do not--that life begins before the implantation of the embryo in the wall of uterus, makes regulated, monitored and properly controlled research justifiable. It is justified in terms of infertility and of helping people so that the child that they bear does not have a degenerative disease. If someone had the opportunity to have a daughter who was free of a degenerative disease, I would expect them to take it.

An issue that has perhaps not received as much attention as those two issues tonight is the very opposite of infertility--finding a safe and acceptable method of contraception, which will work in the less developed world. In Britain and in the developed world, where health education is greatest, we can help and encourage people to use methods of contraception that are safe for the user and that work, but that is not true of the vast majority of countries.

Now that there has been a change in the international climate, I do not believe--I say this with some temerity--that the threat of nuclear annihilation, diseases such as AIDS or global warming are the greatest dangers that the world faces. It is over-population that threatens us. The very life that we have debated tonight is threatened by it--the ability to feed ourselves and to cope with the developments that we are discussing. If we can use research in the 14-day period that we are discussing to

Column 101

develop a safe and sensible method of contraception that works, we shall have done more for the future of humanity than anything that has been achieved so far.

Men respect the fact that they have expected women to bear the burden of contraception, and that was wrong. Therefore, as men, we have a special responsibility to find a solution for the future. That is why I shall vote against the amendment.

Mr. Key : The debate has progressed this afternoon and this evening. It has become better and better. Those hon. Members who sat through the Second Reading debate, and through some five hours of debate today, must agree that a great level of knowledge has developed on both sides of the argument during the past few weeks. I agree with a great deal of what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) said, and I congratulate him on his perspicacious remarks about world population.

We are here tonight because the scientific community has told the House that they cannot take such decisions, and that is only right. I have no doubt that they will come back to us again in future years on such issues.

The hon. member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) missed the point. It is precisely because scientists do not want to make a decision that they have come to us. We are not ill equipped to take such decisions and it is precisely because we are the House of Commons that we are in the best position to make them. We should not shirk that responsibility. Most of us are not medical or scientific experts. I certainly am not, but I seek to represent people's views and to make a judgment, and that is what it is all about. One of the least attractive aspects of the debate in the past few weeks has been that lobbying from both sides has become a little strident. I shall seek to remain calm and cool for a few moments. No one is being forced to take part in human fertilisation and embryology research and it is important to recognise that fact. No parents and no medical men or women are being forced to take part. I reject the concept that those who have a particular moral or scientific viewpoint should prohibit others who may wish to take advantage of particular procedures and who may have a different moral outlook on life. However, it is also important that we should get a few facts right. Much attention has been paid to what has been happening in Australia. My information is perfectly straightforward. When various states decided to outlaw IVF research, the Australians set up clinics in Singapore. The research continued in Singapore for the benefit of Australians, so arguments in that respect are completely sterile.

I am sorry that we spent so much time making capital out of the term "pre- embryo". It has been said that that term is a figment of the imagination of a wicked scientist. Far from it. It has also been argued that the term "pre -embryo" does not appear in medical dictionaries. However, a few years ago the term "AIDS" was not included in medical dictionaries. The term is an example of progress.

I want to refer to some of the important ethical arguments that have been deployed, not least today in The Times. It was interesting to note the article on one page by the Archbishop of York and, on the other, a letter from the Archbishop of Westminster and others, which I read with great interest. The Archbishop of Westminster wrote :

Column 102

"From the beginning of the fertilisation process, the embryo is new human life. This fact alone should govern its status, dignity and rights under the law We cannot justifiably do wrong even for a right reason or a noble cause."

I found that a very interesting and novel Christian argument, let alone moral or ethical argument. I was brought up on books about the just war argued by clerics. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Michie), who intervened in the debate a few hours ago, was right to taunt one of my hon. Friends by asking whether he was a pacifist because he was opposed to embryo research. That is a very important point which we must address.

The Archbishop of York stated in his article in The Times : "Genetic union is decisive in that it produces a unique genetic formula, but it does not at that stage produce a unique and identifiable organism."

The archbishop then cited the question of twins. He continued : "If the morally significant dividing line occurs when there is a physical entity in which unique moral value can be perceived, this transition would seem to mark that change, though this is not to imply that the developing conceptus before differentiation lacks all moral status Moral arguments such as these rest on the interpretation of scientific evidence, and it should not be surprising if sincere and godly people disagree."

And so say all of us.

Sir Bernard Braine : Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Key : I will give way only if my right hon. Friend will reply to my letter of 12 April in which I asked him to explain his attack on me and other members of the Medical Research Council.

Sir Bernard Braine : At that time I was recovering from a criminal assault and I could not reply. If my hon. Friend is adducing scientific evidence in support of his case, what advances have been made in the treatment of genetic disease--any genetic disease--by experimenting with embryos?

Mr. Key : I should not have given way to my right hon. Friend, but I always give way to the Father of the House. We discussed that issue while my right hon. Friend was out of the Chamber. As has been stated frequently, it is a complete red herring to argue that anyone in favour of this research claims that it can cure genetic disease. That is a figment of my right hon. Friend's imagination.

We all want to reduce human suffering in so far as that is possible. We all agree that it is not permissible under any circumstances to perform destructive experiments on human beings, but we disagree about the definitions of human being. We all agree that experiments on living cellular components of human beings such as blood cells, sperm, skin cells and egg cells are permissible under reasonable conditions. Therefore, I believe that those who are opposed to research must consider the matter. These are signs of cellular life when there is an active metabolism, when the cell needs nutrition and when it can divide. If we accept that such cells have full human status, all human medicine and biology must cease, because every blood cell and every other cell must enjoy precisely the same right.

9.30 pm

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

Mr. Key : No, I shall not give way again.

Column 103

This is an important ethical and moral argument, not a scientific argument. Science is not the right framework for addressing issues of value, soul or humanity. For that central reason, the scientific parts of the argument deployed by the Bill's opponents are not only acrimonious but rather pointless. Human status is acquired more gradually as development proceeds, and very early post-conceptual stages are entitled to some but not absolute respect and protection. That was also the view of the Warnock report. The difference is an intuitive value judgment and it cannot be sensibly resolved by debate on the genetic or metabolic attributes of the cells involved. That is precisely why the issue must be settled in Parliament rather than in the laboratory.

I do not wish to detain the House. We should address many detailed points in the future, but I shall put one important argument. Experimentation on pre-embryos does not pose a new moral problem. The essential principles have been accepted by society for many years. Most European societies, including our own, have accepted the use of the intra-uterine contraceptive device--the coil--various forms of oral contraception and the use of menstrual regulation to precipitate a delayed menstrual period. Each involves the loss of pre-implantation embryos. We do not regard that as unethical or illegal and we do not mourn the loss.

Those who oppose research none the less accept that, when there are more pre-embryos than can be placed safely into the womb, those remaining shall be allowed to perish. If pre-embryos perish in the process of research, how do they differ from those that perish by neglect? In the first case, they yield information that may help to improve the successful survival of future pre-embryos as a result of improvements in clinical practice. Is it not proper, therefore, to conclude that, for as long as the techniques of IVF are being used therapeutically, to oppose research is unethical?

There is, of course, arbitrariness in imposing any legal barrier across any continuum, which is what I believe life is. Ultimately the decision about where to place the barrier will be determined by a balance between benefits and losses. Whether or not to allow research during the first 14 days depends primarily on whether we believe strongly enough that it really is a worthwhile objective to provide couples with the opportunity to have a healthy baby. If we decide that that is a worthwhile objective, it should be pursued with the least possible trauma to patients and the least possible loss and wastage of pre-embryos. That is what regulated pre-embryo research is trying to achieve. Enlightenment cannot be undone.

Mr. Alan Amos (Hexham) : This issue is not medical but moral. We all know what medical science and nuclear physicists can do. The question is whether we should allow them to do it. We know that natural selection already takes place in the process of fertilisation. Why should man interfere with that process and try to play God? If we agree to the 14-day period, this will be the most permissive legislation ever enacted, and it will put the United Kingdom increasingly out of line with European countries. The so-called licensing controls would not safeguard the human embryo, any more than safeguards built into the Abortion Act 1967 have prevented abortion on demand, mostly for social rather than medical reasons. Of

Column 104

course the 14-day time limit would soon be challenged and we would be hearing calls for 21 days, 28 days and so on. Dr. Anne McLaren, who was a member of the Warnock committee, has already been talking about 16 and 17 days. Once we go down that road, we shall not be able to stop. Therefore, it is best that we do not start in the first place.

We were told last week, with extraordinarily convenient and suspicious timing, that sex can be identified three days after fertilisation, and male embryos were already being destroyed. Given that knowledge, it simply will not be possible to prevent selection on social rather than medical grounds, as has happened under the abortion legislation.

I am not and never have been against IVF, but I oppose the deliberate artificial creation of human life simply to destroy it. No other branch of medicine would allow the destruction of life to test new techniques. If passed, clause 11 will allow the in vitro embryo to be frozen, discarded, donated, sold and used for destructive research.

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

Mr. Amos : No, I am afraid that I really must get on.

Mr. Dalyell : But the hon. Gentleman has misquoted the doctor.

Mr. Amos : I cannot give way. I really must get on.

On that basis the embryonic human being is therefore nothing more than an object ; it is another example of the throwaway society that says, if it is not useful or convenient, get rid of it. But it is more than that. We are not talking about treatment and cure, but about culling and search-and- destroy operations--in other words, selective breeding. If we allow that, we shall be demonstrating yet again the extent to which we live in a moral vacuum.

The basis of my argument is that human life begins at conception. That is a moral and medical position. The basic medical textbook, "The Developing Human--Clinically Orientated Embryology" by K. L. Moore states :

"The development of a human being begins with fertilisation, a process by which a sperm from a male, unites with an ovum from a female."

The Geneva convention code of medical ethics reasserted the traditional principles of medical ethics in 1949 when it stated : "I will maintain the utmost respect for human life from the time of conception ; even under threat. I will not use my medical knowledge contrary to the laws of humanity."

It is significant that respect for human life applies from the moment of conception. The declaration of Helsinki, the main statement on medical ethics concerning research on human beings, adopted by the World Medical Association said :

"The doctor can combine medical research with professional care, the objectives being the acquisition of new medical knowledge, only to the extent that medical research is justified by its potential diagnostic or therapeutic value for the patient"--

in this case, the embryo.

"In research on man, the interests of science and society should never take precedence over considerations relating to the well being of a subject."

Human life begins at conception, not some flexible time limit determined by scientists or politicians, regardless of how uncomfortable that fact may be.

The use of the word "pre-embryo" dates back to the Warnock report and is designed to dehumanise the human

Column 105

embryo. Nature magazine--one of the most respected scientific journals in Britain--suggested on 14 May 1987 that the medical profession should

"ban the use of the word pre-embryo' used by the voluntary authority as a synonym for a fertilised human ovum not yet implanted in a uterus. Put simply, this usage is a cop-out, a way of pretending that the public conflict about IVF and other innovations in human embryology can be made to go away by means of an appropriate nomenclature. The fact is that a fertilised human egg is as much deserving of being called an embryo as is a fertilised frog's egg." Therefore, life begins at conception. An embryo is a living, growing, developing human being. If it is not life or human, what is it?

It must be stressed that, at the moment, it is not possible to identify or learn about the development of diseases by using human embryos before the target tissues has developed.

There is no evidence that outlawing the use of human embryos will prevent improvements in the IVF technique. Dr. John McLean has clearly shown that, in South Australia and Victoria, where there are bans, IVF development continues on a par with anywhere else in the world. The results, as measured by live births, are among the best in the world. All the work that has yielded results on genetic diseases so far has been carried out on live patients. Every cell of the body contains all the genetic information necessary. Cells can be taken from adult patients with a genetic disease to reveal how the genes produce abnormalities. No such information has been obtained from the use of human embryos.

As Progress has said :

"Research using human pre-embryos is not and never has been concerned with the treatment of genetic disorders or chromosomal abnormalities, rather, it is concerned with prevention."

Therefore, all the work on embryos is aimed at embryo biopsy, a technique that scientists hope to develop so that they can identify and destroy any afflicted embryos. Even here, deliberate attempts have been made to mislead the public into believing that embryo research will be a cure-all for every type of disease.

When society begins to use terms such as "pre-embryo", "product of conception" or "cluster of cells", it has begun to forget the essence of human life--that it is human, that it begins at conception, and, therefore, that it is to be respected. Let there be no doubt that the embryo research advocated in this country is aimed not at finding a cure for diseases but at weeding out and destroying affected individuals.

Chillingly, Progress has said :

"Only those pre-embryos that are diagnosed as being free from the genetic defect would be transferred to the woman's uterus." The answer to finding a true cure for many of the genetic diseases suffered today is to follow the example of tried and tested procedures from some of the most respected scientists in the world. Professor Jerome Lejeune, and others discovered the cause of Down's syndrome. He has stated :

"The new developments in molecular biology applied to cells taken from adult patients with cystic fibrosis, muscular dystrophy and Huntington's disease have generated much greater understanding of the genetic factors responsible for these diseases. None of these achievements has involved the use of human embryos."

Column 106

Experiments must be allowed only if they benefit individual human embryos themselves and are not simply search-and- destroy missions where human life is sacrificed for human convenience.

Much has been made of IVF in recent years and of its ability to produce children where the natural method has failed. When we talk about childless couples and infertility, we cannot fail to feel sympathy for them. However, it is another matter to say that the solution to infertility is artificially to create too much life and dispose of the unwanted. IVF, which is the deliberate creation of human life in the test tube, presents doctors and scientists with a dilemma. Not wanting to call it human, they dehumanise it and justify any destruction by referring to a "pre-embryo" or "cluster of cells". But any embryo that implants and starts to grow is immediately called a human being. Women do not say, "I am expecting a cluster of cells," or, "I am carrying a pre-embryo." They call it what it is--a baby. It is a unique human being from the moment of conception, not from 14 days or the appearance of the primitive streak.

It has been quoted ad nauseam that Robert Winston claimed recently on a television programme that the success rate for IVF was about 8 per cent. Yet a brochure produced by the clinics that sell IVF treatments to infertile couples, including Robert Winston's facilities, says that the success rate varies from 15 per cent. to 35 per cent. It seems that, when they want public sympathy, scientists say that the success rate is low, but when they want the public's money the success rate grows.

Mrs. Fyfe : Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Amos : I am sorry, but I must conclude.

The Bill will not ban IVF. We must try to achieve a total ban on the artificial creation, and destruction of spare embryos and experimentation on them. Multiple implantation means multiple destruction. Where multiple pregnancies occur, it is common either to abort the surplus or, now, to choose selective reduction, which involves choosing which unborn children, as they will become, are to be killed because too many were implanted in the first place. Naturally, people will say that it is killing not a child, but a pre-embryo, a cluster of cells or the product of conception. The creation of individual embryos for implantation through IVF can be justified provided that the embryo is transferred to the mother. The work of Dr. John McLean of Manchester university has shown that infertility treatments do not necessarily involve the creation of surplus embryos. His success rate is much higher than that achieved by current IVF procedures.

IVF is inefficient, expensive, time-consuming and dangerous for women. It can lead to cysts, coagulation, strokes, heart problems, ovarian cancer and many other problems. Babies born from IVF have three times the rate of low birth weight, five times the spina bifida rate and four times the perinatal death rate.

The technology exists for infertility treatment that avoids the artificial creation of human life. For humanity's sake, let us use it. Can we as a society ever justify the creation of human life for purposes which have no bearing on that particular life or the use of that human life so that inevitably it has a limited future? For many research scientists, that is immaterial. To create life for whatever

Next Section

Home Page