| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mrs. Ann Winterton: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the cells to which he referred are human?
Dr. Gibson: Yes. Animal cells from mice and rats have been used, but the experiment has been done in all sorts of organisms.
Mrs. Winterton: Even in the case of humans?
The opposition thinks that the potential for life is equated with life itself. However, could those who think in that way stand before patients and tell them that they were unable to provide research or technology that would improve their lives? Could they also stand before patients and say that they are going to be denied a certain drug? If patients are denied cancer drugs, there will certainly be a hoo-hah, just as there was recently over some of the decisions of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. The Government's plans to extend the Act and to make sure that the regulations are operable so that we can continue with the development of knowledge and the pursuit of human happiness are what we and the country should be discussing today.
10.50 am
Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight): I very much welcome the opportunity afforded by today's debate--
Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise for interrupting the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Dr. Brand).
Yesterday, the Leader of the House announced a debate on a motion on the Immigration and Appeals (Family Visitor) (No. 2) Regulations 2000. The measure has been prayed against by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Amess), some Liberal Democrat Members and myself. My hon. Friend and I appear among the top six names. If the Government propose that the prayer against the regulations is only in the name of the Liberal Democrat Members, could I ask that by Monday someone could look into whether it is proper and appropriate to exclude concerned Back Benchers from the Order Paper? It is not an issue on which I expect an immediate answer, but I expect it to be considered.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving me notice that he might raise that point of order. Unfortunately, it was insufficient notice for me to give him a considered answer at this moment, but I shall ensure that an answer is provided by Monday.
Dr. Brand: Obviously that pressing business was more important than the debate.
I congratulate the chief medical officer on his report, and the Minister and her colleague in another place on a clear and succinct resume.
No matter where one stands on the subject, it is quite clear that there are moral and ethical arguments on both sides of the debate. It is also clear that the scientific arguments are all on one side, which is to extend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. I hope that when we have a substantive debate and the opportunity to vote on these matters, hon. Members will not try to rerun the 1990 Act, the Abortion Act 1967 or the Medical Treatment (Prevention of Euthanasia) Bill that was promoted by the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who is not in her place at the moment, but will stick to the extension of the 1990 Act by regulation to make sure that opportunities in scientific research are not only available but, more important, controlled.
I cannot accept the argument of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) that we in the United Kingdom can sit back and duck out of our moral responsibility in these matters, let the dirty work, as he might see it, be done by others and then reap the benefits on behalf of the people whom I am sure hon. Members on both sides of the House would like to see helped--those with Parkinson's disease and other degenerative problems.
Mr. Hammond: Would the hon. Gentleman extend that and suggest that any country that did not have a pharmaceutical research base should be denied the treatments that derive from such research work?
Dr. Brand: If a country decided on moral grounds that it would not have a pharmaceutical research base because it did not believe in the product of the pharmaceutical industry, one would expect it to do just that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that sections of our population are totally against intervention by modern medicine of any sort and are prepared to follow their beliefs to such an extent that they deny even their families and their children medical treatment. The argument that we can afford to stand back really does not wash. I do not think we can accept it.
Mr. Hammond: I hear what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does he accept that the key issue at stake in the Government's introduction of these regulations is the defence of the United Kingdom's pharmaceutical and biotechnological research base?
Dr. Brand: I am now totally confused. I thought that the hon. Gentleman was working from a high moral position, which clearly I respect, but he now appears to be arguing that the most important part of the debate and the need for the extension through regulation is to support some economic factor for the country in respect of employment. The hon. Gentleman is pointing at the Minister. I am quite sure that all countries which have the capacity to develop this technology are having debates just like this one, or have had them in the past. It is no accident that the European Parliament considered the matter. Unfortunately, however, there was the usual north-south divide on largely religious grounds on some of the approaches that were being taken.
It is not good enough to say that we will let other people do it, or to say that because our biotechnology industry needs to be supported we should allow it to do
shady things. We should make a decision on principle, and I am suggesting that that principle should be that we accept the 1990 Act.I really find it very difficult when hon. Members' personal, deeply felt opinions--which I respect--form the framework for denying other people opportunities. I know that it is right that in all we do in our personal lives we should be guided by our beliefs, but I have some difficulty when those beliefs are imposed on others.
I do not believe that foetal cells have the same status as a unique human being. If we are going to be theological about it, I do not think that the divine soul enters when an egg is fertilised. The process, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson), is so wasteful. Some 20 per cent. of implanted fertilised eggs are wasted. Does that mean that 20 per cent. of souls are suddenly lost? Probably 40 to 50 per cent. of fertilised eggs are wasted and lost before implantation. If we look at the process of embryology before the fertilised egg develops to the blastocyst stage--there is some very helpful revision material available in Professor Donaldson's report--we see that it goes through a morello stage where at some time it is capable of becoming four individuals but is then reabsorbed. What happens to the four unique souls who then have to merge into one?
Mrs. Ann Winterton: I am intrigued by the hon. Gentleman's theory about unique souls. I do not think that anyone else has mentioned them and I rather suspect that the hon. Gentleman does not believe that people have souls anyway, so I suggest, with respect, that he might get back to the main thrust of his argument.
Dr. Brand: I would be very sad if I did not believe that I had a soul, and I would be fairly hypocritical being here for prayers. My point is that there is a great difference between foetal material before 14 days--or indeed, a foetus up to 22 weeks--and a born child. One has to accept that because it is accepted in law. I know that some right hon. and hon. Members do not, and I respect their views. However, they use every opportunity to impose those views on processes that are essential if we are to make scientific progress.
I enjoyed the anti-science rant--no, it was really very reasoned--from the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge. Of course knowledge is a dangerous thing. Eve had much to be blamed for when she made Adam eat the apple of knowledge.
Mrs. Winterton: Oh, so it is all our fault, is it?
Dr. Brand: Well, I am only going by the available sources that inform us on these matters, and if they are sexist, there is not much that I can do. Even Galileo has been pardoned by the Catholic Church.
I understand the concept of Frankenstein and the fear of cloning. I am not so fearful that Beckham will be cloned as much as Dolly the sheep--much more aggressive than Beckham, I think, and possibly more effective on the football field. The other concept of immortal cell lines rings out as if scientists will take over the world. I believe that these regulations are about the control and management of science. We are talking about development, not an immediate application.
It is right to have a vision or a goal. Columbus had a vision; he failed absolutely miserably--he found no gold at all--but he had a vision of finding El Dorado and he increased knowledge. It would be very Luddite of the House of Commons to deny opportunities, provided that they work within a framework. To suggest that recommendation 2 hands too much power to the HFEA, should there be an extension, is nonsense. Even as a well-informed House of Commons, we could not possibly be informed well enough to deal with all the questions that arise.
I am not going to speak on the science of embryology--I am a clinician, not a scientist. I leave that sort of thing to my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who is far cleverer than me and who made a very valid contribution in a somewhat ill-timed ten-minute Bill debate. I hope that after this opportunity to air the issue on a wider basis, a subsequent vote will reflect people's intellectual assessment of the problem rather than their gut instincts.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |