Examination of Witnesses (Questions 840
- 843)
WEDNESDAY 27 OCTOBER 2004
DR MICHAEL
WILKS AND
DR VIVIENNE
NATHANSON
Q840 Dr Harris: On the question of
selection, you have said earlier in your evidence that you do
not think, for example, that sperm sorting, where there is only
a small, theoretical risk of harm, in itself requires regulation
and, therefore, that is not of itself sufficient. Can I ask—and
this is really something we covered earlier—why you feel
that straight IVF, which has now been seen to be safe, requires
continuing regulation, even on the basis that the public worry
because it is not that controversial now—straightforward
IVF treatment with no egg-giving and all that sort of thing? Should
we not start to move that stuff out of regulation on that basis?
Dr Nathanson: I cannot presume
that there is not some public opposition to even simple, straightforward
IVF. I think that it does come down, in our minds, to this issue
that it is very often difficult to separate out from that the
more complex techniques and people's attitudes to those as well.
Q841 Dr Harris: There is public concern
about sperm sorting and you have taken a different view on that.
Dr Nathanson: I will come to that.
I think what we have currently in terms of regulation is a body
of regulation which gets largely public support as regards controlling
powerful technology and imposing appropriate limits, and not interfering
in most cases with individuals. On the issue of sperm sorting,
we were asked whether we thought it should be covered or we were
considering whether it should be covered by the legislation and
the regulatory authority, and we were saying no to that. However,
that does not mean to say that we think sperm sorting is a good
idea any more than we think that sex selection is a good idea;
the question is whether it needs to be included under amended
regulations for amended legislation, and we were saying no to
that. We do not believe that necessarily just because there are
some remote, theoretical risks that that is the best reason for
including other pieces of technology under this legislation.
Q842 Dr Harris: The BMA, I always
thought, thinks that doctors are quite well-regulated at the moment
because there is professional self-regulation, there is the risk,
if they do something wrong, of a criminal prosecution, and they
have to put things through ethics committees locally. So, if anything,
there are a number of jeopardies that doctors face. Why is it
that you feel that straight IVF, where there is not—I put
it to you—significant or excess risk compared to other areas
of medical treatment and where there is not that much public opposition
or, indeed, a yuk factor why is it that this area of medical treatment
you believe requires still yet a further level of complex bureaucratic
regulation. What is it that you have got against doctors working
in this field?
Dr Nathanson: Let us remember
that it is not simply doctors, it is doctors and scientists, and
it regulates everyone equally, which is a benefit. I just come
back, again, to the fact that I believe that part of the public
support for this is about the fact it is regulated and, therefore,
limited. I do not believe that most people involved in this technology
would go mad and do things wholly unacceptable to society. Nevertheless,
I think part of the bargain with society is about the fact there
is regulation to limit that.
Dr Wilks: Reading across from
the regulatory process that looks after patients and regulates
doctors to the regulatory process for this kind of technology
is probably unwise. One reason for that is that although it is
improving, the regulatory process involving doctors only really
kicks in when something rather serious has gone wrong, and we
would rather things were done prospectively rather than retrospectively
in terms of this kind of regulation.
Q843 Dr Turner: I think at this point
in time, time really has caught up with us. There are two outstanding
issues we would like to ask you about. If we write to you, perhaps
you could let us have written replies to those. Thank you very
much for your contribution to our exhaustive inquiry.
Dr Nathanson: Thank you very much.
Dr Wilks: Thank you for inviting
us.
| 
