Formal minutes
Monday 14 March 2005
Members present:
Dr Ian Gibson, in the Chair
| Paul Farrelly |
| Mr Robert Key |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Dr Desmond Turner
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
The Committee deliberated.
Draft Report (Human Reproductive Technologies and the Law), proposed
by the Chairman, brought up and read.
Ordered, That the Chairman's draft Report be read a second
time, paragraph by paragraph.
Paragraphs 1 to 31 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 32 read as follows:
This approach emphasises the importance of the individual, specifically
the autonomy of the individual and the right to make private choices.
This has been challenged by Professor Robin Gill from the University
of Kent, who argues that "We live in the "time of the
triumph of autonomy in bioethics" in which "the law
and ethics of medicine are dominated by one paradigm - the autonomy
of the patient". He argues that "conceptions of individual
autonomy cannot provide a sufficient and convincing starting point
for ethics within medical practice". However, it is worth
bearing in mind that legal tradition is that decisions which fall
into the private domain are generally regarded as not of interest
to the state. Certain exceptions to this maxim do, of course,
exist, but these generally arise in the sphere of criminal law.
Thus, when the service to be provided is the implantation of an
embryo with the intention of establishing a pregnancy, and in
line with Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights
(incorporated into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998) reproduction
itself would seem to be firmly situated within the private domain.
The primary consequence of this is that the right to private and
family life espoused in Article 8 can be said to apply to reproductive
decisions. Only if one of the possible derogations from that
Article can be established (for example where there is a threat
to public health or morals) would the terms of this Article be
inapplicable.
Amendment proposed, in line 12, leave out the words "in line
with" and insert the words "according to a libertarian
interpretation of".—(Paul Farrelly.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | | Noes, 4
|
| | |
| Paul Farrelly | | Dr Evan Harris
|
| | Dr Brian Iddon
|
| | Mr Robert Key
|
| | Dr Desmond Turner
|
Amendment disagreed to.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 14, before the word "reproduction"
insert the words "some would argue that".—(Paul
Farrelly.)
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 15, after the word "this"
insert the words "interpretation and approach".—
(Paul Farrelly.)
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 15, leave out the word "can",
and insert the word "could".—(Paul Farrelly.)
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 18, after the word "morals",
insert the words "or for the protections of the rights and
freedoms of others".—(Paul Farrelly.)
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Another amendment proposed, in line 19, after the word "inapplicable"
to add the words "Clearly, however, these derogations are
very broad and capable of much interpretation and legal debate.
Some of this debate overlaps with arguments in paragraphs 32-44
below, which examine arguments to limit and regulate reproductive
freedom.".—(Paul Farrelly.)
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 19, after the word "inapplicable"
to add the words "In the absence of a body of court decisions,
and therefore precedents, it would be possible for all sides of
the debate about reproductive freedom to cite Article 8 to bolster
their argument.". —(Paul Farrelly.)
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Question, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | | Noes, 1
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
| Mr Robert Key | |
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraph 33 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 34 read as follows:
The Chair of the HFEA, Suzi Leather, stated to us that she thought
it was the special status of the embryo justified regulation,
although it could be argued that the special status of the embryo
is currently achieved by provisions in the HFE Act and that it
is possible to achieve this without further legislation. It is
interesting to note that in the Warnock report, the idea of protecting
the embryo in law arose from the discussion of embryo research
rather than assisted reproduction. Professor Peter Braude from
Guy's Hospital and a former member of the HFEA felt that it was
the creation of a new life the justified intervention. He told
us that "I do not think there is another area of medical
practice that is like assisted conception. There is no other area
I know other than drugs in pregnancy where, in satisfying the
client […] who come along to you and say, 'We desperately
want some children', to solve that problem is a child".
Amendment proposed, in line 2, leave out from the word "regulation"
to the word "It" in line 4 and insert the words "It
is important to draw a distinction between legislation and regulation
and it is not clear that protection of the embryo requires oversight
beyond that set out in legislation.".—(Dr Evan Harris.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | | Noes, 1
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
| Mr Robert Key | |
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Amendment agreed to.
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Paragraphs 35 to 43 read and agreed to.
Paragraph 44 read as follows:
An alternative perspective to the balance between reproductive
freedom and state intervention is provided by utilitarian ethics.
Here the emphasis is on measuring the benefits over burdens of
particular activities. This approach was rejected by the Warnock
Committee. It said "Moral questions, such as those with which
we have been concerned, are, by definition, questions that involve
not only a calculation of consequences, but also strong sentiments
with regard to the nature of the proposed activities themselves."
Thus, for the Warnock Committee, even if evidence were available
which could establish that the benefits (for example to the infertile)
of unregulated access to assisted reproduction, there were underpinning
moral or ethical considerations which also had to be considered,
at least in some circumstances. However, the Warnock Committee
did not view assisted reproduction in itself as a threshold that
should not be crossed over. Thus, it would appear that both libertarian
and utilitarian ethics would support the view that, in terms of
the embryo intended for implantation, since the creation of a
pregnancy is inherently to be regarded as a good thing, the state
has no right to intervene in the choices of people to procreate
unless evidence of harm can be shown.
Amendment proposed, in line 13, leave out from the
word "would" to the word "in" in line 13,
and insert the words "could support the view that".—(Paul
Farrelly.)
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 |
| Noes, 4 |
| | |
| Paul Farrelly | | Dr Evan Harris
|
| | Dr Brian Iddon
|
| | Mr Robert Key
|
| | Dr Desmond Turner
|
Amendment disagreed to.
Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | | Noes, 1
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
| Mr Robert Key | |
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 45 to 46 read and agreed to.
A paragraph—(Dr Evan Harris)—brought up, read
and inserted (now paragraph 47).
Paragraphs 47 to 49 (now paragraphs 48 to 50) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 50 (now paragraph 51) read as follows:
As we have seen, IVF procedures often produce spare embryos. These
may either be surplus or of insufficient quality. While the Warnock
committee was unanimous about the use of these embryos for research,
four of the 16 members felt that there was a "clear moral
distinction" between the use of spare embryos and the creation
of embryos specifically for research. These views were based on
the following arguments:
a) That the creation of an embryo for research
was inconsistent with the idea that it should be afforded special
status.
b) That, unless prohibited, it would lead to
the use of embryos for routine and less valid research.
The majority of the Warnock Committee felt that the
medical benefits from the creation of embryos were such that it
was justified in certain circumstances. We also subscribe to this
view. We believe that the research on human embryos can be
undertaken without compromising its special status but that this
research should have proper ethical oversight as set out in Chapters
8 and 9. We further conclude that, where necessary, embryos can
be created specifically for research purposes.
Amendment proposed, in line 15, after the word "oversight"
insert the words "and regulation".—(Paul Farrelly.)
Question put, that the Amendments be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 |
| Noes, 4 |
| | |
| Paul Farrelly | | Dr Evan Harris
|
| | Dr Brian Iddon
|
| | Mr Robert Key
|
| | Dr Desmond Turner
|
Amendment disagreed to.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 15, before the word "We"
insert the words "Presently embryonic stem cell research,
for instance, is thought to offer promising avenues for the alleviation
of illness or disease and".— (Paul Farrelly.)
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 16, leave out the words "where
necessary" and insert the words "but subject
to the same close ethical oversight and regulation and only where
considered necessary".—(Paul Farrelly.)
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | | Noes, 1
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
| Mr Robert Key | |
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 50 to 53 (now paragraphs 51 to 54) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 54 (now paragraph 55) read, amended, and agreed to.
Paragraphs 55 to 59 (now paragraphs 56 to 60) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 60 (now paragraph 61) read as follows:
The placing of a human embryo in an animal raises clear issues
of animal welfare but the ethical problems relating to the special
status of the embryo are less clear. We are aware of no possible
treatment applications that should lead us to question the current
prohibition. However, if a spare embryo has been made available
for research, then it could be argued that respect for the embryo
should prompt us to ensure that it is used for the best possible
ends. It has been commented that very little is known about the
development of the human embryo in vivo. There have been calls
for the application of animal research work to human assisted
reproduction. While we are aware of no interest from scientists
in extending this work by placing human embryos in animals, it
is conceivable that such research could yield valuable insights
into the causes of infertility and miscarriage. Such a proposition
would make many uncomfortable. Nonetheless, we have set ourselves
the task of recommending new legislation that can cope with new
technical advances and difficult issues must be taken into account.
Amendment proposed, in line 12, leave out the word
"recommending" and insert the words "considering
all difficult issues relating to".—(Paul Farrelly.)
Question proposed, That the Amendment be made:—Amendment,
by leave, withdrawn.
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 61 to 65 (now paragraphs 62 to 66) read
and agreed to.
Paragraph 66 (now paragraph 67) read as follows:
While a chimera is unlikely to be able to develop
very far, it may have value as a research tool, possibly as a
means of testing the ability of stem cell cultures to form all
forms of tissue. Similarly, hybrids formed by cell nuclear replacement
might have value in deriving embryonic stem cells for research
purposes. There have been reports that Chinese scientists have
harvested stem cells from embryos created by introducing human
cell nuclei into enucleated rabbit eggs. Professor Robin Lovell
Badge from the MRC's National Institute for Medical research told
us that this technique might overcome the shortage of human cell
lines, although he told us that some of this work was "to
be taken with a pinch of salt". The 2000 Donaldson Report
on stem cell research stated that the 1990 Act does not control
the mixing of animal eggs with other human cells but that this
should be prohibited. The Lords Stem Cell Research Committee expressed
some surprise at the conclusion since it could raise fewer ethical
questions than for the use of a human embryo created using CNR.
It should be remembered that the HFE Act aimed to give protection
to the human embryo and not gametes or other forms of embryo.
Provisions to protect hybrids would require a different ethical
basis. The ethical status
of hybrids and chimeras is complex. While there is revulsion in
some quarters that such creations blur the distinction between
animals and humans, it could be argued that they are less human
than, and therefore pose fewer ethical problems for, research,
than fully human embryos. We recognise concerns that hybrids and
chimeras could be used for reproductive purposes and recommend
that new legislation defines the nature of these creations and
makes their creation legal for research purposes only if they
are destroyed in line with the current 14-day rule for human embryo
cultures.
Amendment proposed, in line 14, to leave out from
the word "embryo" to the end of the paragraph, and to
add the words "The ethical status of hybrids and chimeras
may be a complex issue for some and clearly there is also revulsion
that such creations blur the distinction between animals and humans.
New legislation, however, should not shy from addressing such
advances in scientific technology and the issues involved should
be properly debated. We have received no evidence, however, which
suggests that - as with insertion of human embryos in animal wombs
or vice-versa - that there are any benefits in new legislation
permitting the creation of hybrids or chimeras for either reproductive
or research purposes. Again, should the government receive expert
advice to the contrary, given the ethical issues involved, any
such change should be a matter for Parliament and primary legislation.".—(Paul
Farrelly.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 |
| Noes, 4 |
| | |
| Paul Farrelly | | Dr Evan Harris
|
| | Dr Brian Iddon
|
| | Mr Robert Key
|
| | Dr Desmond Turner
|
Amendment disagreed to.
Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | | Noes, 1
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
| Mr Robert Key | |
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 67 to 79 (now paragraphs 68 to 80) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 80 (now paragraph 81) read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 81 to 92 (now paragraphs 83 to 93) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 93 (now paragraph 94) read, amended and agreed to.
Paragraphs 94 to 95 (now paragraphs 95 to 96) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 96 (now paragraph 97) read as follows:
The HFEA reported other concerns that the time and cost of carrying
out the welfare of the child assessment is disproportionate to
the benefit gained. Professor Allan Templeton of the Royal College
of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists told us that "It has
been a distortion of clinical practice; it has been absolutely
beyond any effect at all in terms of trying to enhance the welfare
of the child". He argues that there is no need for specific
welfare of the child issues within any act as "it is good
medical practice". Witnesses from the British Fertility Society
and the Association of Clinical Embryologists told us that they
had compared notes in advance of the session. Of the four clinics
they represented, they said that their "hit rate" for
stopping treatment based on welfare of the child was between 0%
and 0.3%. This suggests that if the welfare of the child provision
were abolished, we would, in theory, be exposing around 10 children
a year to potential harm. It is possible, however, that the provision
has had a deterrent effect or that patients have withdrawn from
treatment when it became clear that inquiries were being made
about their background. The HFEA reports that while clinics sometimes
make further enquiries to other agencies, they very rarely turn
patients down for treatment. When they do, the most common reasons
are medical (because the patient has an infectious disease or
they are being treated for cancer), psychiatric (because the patient
has a mental illness or a drug or alcohol problem) or, occasionally,
social (because the couple lives apart). The consultation document
sets out a range of approaches for the implementation of the HFE
Act's provision:
a) The maximum welfare principle, which considers
a child's welfare to be of paramount importance and places the
burden of proof upon the prospective parents to demonstrate their
competence;
b) The minimum threshold principle, which places
great importance upon the autonomy of the prospective parents
and seeks to override their wishes only when their child would
be at high risk of serious harm; and
c) The reasonable welfare principle, which reflects
a compromise position.
Amendment proposed, in line 12, after the word "harm"
to insert the words "For many this in itself would be a persuasive
reason to keep the welfare of the child provision.".—(Paul
Farrelly.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 |
| Noes, 4 |
| | |
| Paul Farrelly | | Dr Evan Harris
|
| | Dr Brian Iddon
|
| | Mr Robert Key
|
| | Dr Desmond Turner
|
Amendment disagreed to.
Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | | Noes, 1
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
| Mr Robert Key | |
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 97 to 106 (now paragraphs 98 to 107) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 107 (now paragraph 108) read as follows:
The welfare of the child provision discriminates against the
infertile and some sections of society, is impossible to implement
and is of dubious value in protecting the interests of children
born as a result of assisted reproduction. We recognise that there
will be difficult cases but these should be resolved by recourse
to local clinical ethics committees. The welfare of the child
provision has enabled the HFEA to make judgements that are more
properly made by patients in consultation with their doctor. It
should be abolished. Doctors should minimise the risks to any
child conceived from treatment within the constraints of available
knowledge but this should be encouraged through the promotion
of good medical practice not legislation.
Amendment proposed, in line 1, to leave out the word "discriminate"
and insert the words "may be considered to discriminate".—(Paul
Farrelly.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | | Noes, 4
|
| | |
| Paul Farrelly | | Dr Evan Harris
|
| | Dr Brian Iddon
|
| | Mr Robert Key
|
| | Dr Desmond Turner
|
Amendment disagreed to.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the word "impossible"
and insert the words "is difficult".—(Paul
Farrelly.)
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 2, to leave out the word "dubious"
and insert the words "questionable practical".—(Paul
Farrelly.)
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 7, to leave out the words
"it should be abolished" and insert the words 'The government
should, therefore, consider carefully the case for its abolition
rather than retention in any new Act. It should also carefully
consider the case that".—(Paul Farrelly.)
Question, That the amendment be made, put and negatived.
Another Amendment made.
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | | Noes, 1
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
| Mr Robert Key | |
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 108 to 123 (now paragraphs 109 to 124) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 124 (now paragraph 125) read as follows:
The application of selection becomes more problematic when the
expression of the gene is not 100% and when there are available
cures. The use of PGD for cancer predispositions and to eliminate
carriers of genetic conditions is likely to remain controversial.
We took evidence from Dr Maureen McHugh, a contributor to our
online consultation who has Parkinson's disease. She stated that
"If it were possible to deselect an embryo at the very early
pre-implantation stage to exclude the possibility of Parkinson's
disease, then I think it would be morally wrong to allow that
embryo to develop further. […] This is not discriminating
against disabled people and it is not murder. It is simply trying
to prevent disability, pain and misery". We have concerns
about the criteria imposed by the HFEA. PGD is limited in that
it can only be used to screen out disorders and thus it can never
be used to create the "designer babies" We see no reason
why a regulator should seek to determine which disorders can be
screened out using PGD. Nevertheless, clinical decisions should
operate within clear boundaries set by Parliament and informed
by ethical judgements.
Amendment proposed, in line 10, to leave out from the word "misery"
to the end of the paragraph, and to add the words "As the
technology currently stands, PGD is limited in that it can only
screen our disorders and cannot be used to create so-called 'designer
babies' in the popular understanding of the term. Scientific advance,
however, is rapid and the state, either through primary legislation
or regulation, does have an interest in influencing those disorders
which can be screened out or in using PGD. Clinical decisions
should operate within clear boundaries set by Parliament and informed
by ethical judgements and oversight.".—(Paul Farrelly.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | | Noes, 4
|
| | |
| Paul Farrelly | | Dr Evan Harris
|
| | Dr Brian Iddon
|
| | Mr Robert Key
|
| | Dr Desmond Turner
|
Amendment disagreed to.
Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | | Noes, 1
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
| Mr Robert Key | |
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 125 to 128 (now paragraphs 126 to 129) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 129 (now paragraph 130) read as follows:
The term "saviour sibling" has been coined, yet little
attention has been given to the prospect of saviour sons or daughters,
or even nephews and nieces. The HFEA ethics committee, while supporting
the use of PTT for siblings, drew the line at the use of the technology
to benefit other members of the family. To make this distinction
implies that there is evidence to suggest the psychological impact
on the child, and the nature of the family's relationship, would
be different if the recipient of the stem cells were not a sibling.
The HFEA's review of its policy acknowledged this issue but stated
merely that it raised "distinct and significant issues"
and should be the subject of further consideration. We conclude
that there are no compelling reasons for a statutory authority
to make judgements on whether or not a family can seek preimplantation
tissue typing, provided they fall within parameters set by Parliament.
Amendment proposed, in line 9, to leave out from the word "We"
to the end of the paragraph and to add the words "We
recommend that Parliament does indeed consider the approach to
such wider issues as part of any new Act.".—(Paul
Farrelly.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 |
| Noes, 4 |
| | |
| Paul Farrelly | | Dr Evan Harris
|
| | Dr Brian Iddon
|
| | Mr Robert Key
|
| | Dr Desmond Turner
|
Amendment disagreed to.
Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | | Noes, 1
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
| Mr Robert Key | |
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 130 to 141 (now paragraphs 131 to 142) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 142 (now paragraph 142) read as follows:
Doubts have been cast over the validity of the data
gathered by the HFEA in support of its conclusions on sex selection.
However, even if the HFEA exaggerates the public's hostility to
sex selection for social reasons, we have little reason to doubt
that a majority of the British public oppose it. Professor Tom
Shakespeare from Newcastle University has provided confirmation
of this from his own research. Nevertheless, we do not see this
as adequate grounds for prohibition. In paragraph 46, we stated
that while reproductive freedom needed to be balanced against
harms to individuals and society, these claims of harm needed
to be based on evidence. In 2001, the Ethics Committee of the
American Society of Reproductive Medicine concluded that:
"Until a more clearly persuasive ethical argument
emerges, or there is stronger empirical evidence that most choices
to select the gender of offspring would be harmful, policies to
prohibit or condemn as unethical all uses of non-medically indicated
preconception gender selection are not justified."
Four years on there is still no compelling evidence
of harms to individuals and society from social sex selection.
The issue of sex selection requires greater analysis than has
been afforded it by the HFEA. The onus should be on those who
oppose its use for social reasons using PGD to show harm from
its use. However, the use and destruction of embryos does raise
ethical issues and there are grounds for caution. We urge greater
efforts to establish the demographic impacts across all sectors
of society and the implications for the creation and destruction
of embryos in vitro.
Amendment proposed, in line 6, to leave out from
the word "Nevertheless" to the word "In" in
line 6, and insert the words "Clearly,
public opinion needs to be taken into account by Parliament, but
any prohibition should also be based on good ethical grounds and
evidence of harm.".—(Paul Farrelly.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 |
| Noes, 4 |
| | |
| Paul Farrelly | | Dr Evan Harris
|
| | Dr Brian Iddon
|
| | Mr Robert Key
|
| | Dr Desmond Turner
|
Amendment disagreed to.
Another Amendment proposed, in line 22, after the words "in
vitro." add the words "On balance we find
no adequate justification for prohibiting the use of sex selection
for family balancing.".—(Dr Evan Harris.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | | Noes, 2
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Mr Robert Key | | Dr Brian Iddon
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 3 | | Noes, 1
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Mr Robert Key | |
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 143 to 153 (now paragraphs 144 to 154) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 154 (now paragraph 155) read as follows:
During our visit to Stockholm we were told that, in the 1980s,
250 children were born by donor insemination each year. We heard
that, after the law ending anonymity was passed in 1985, the number
of inseminations declined but that the practice did not end. Currently,
around 60 children are born each year by donor insemination and
it was estimated that another 200 are conceived abroad. We understand
that the waiting list for donors is several years' long. The Department
of Health said that the Minister's statement about the Swedish
case was based largely on a report commissioned from Professor
Eric Blyth at the University of Huddersfield. He reported that
the change in legislation in Sweden resulted in a decline in donor
recruitment, but that it was not possible to ascertain the scale
of the reduction. He provided anecdotal data that recruitment
had recovered following the change in legislation. It is difficult
to reconcile the Department's statements with the comments we
heard first hand in Stockholm. A possible solution is that the
Department's evidence related to the number of donors rather than
the number of children born through donation. A flaw in their
approach is that it relied on input from existing clinics that
offer donor insemination. We have heard that in the UK some clinics
have ceased operating the service. In Sweden the same effect was
observed, with five of the 10 clinics closing. Those that continued
the service may have managed to maintain their own supplies despite
an overall drop in the number of donors. This may seem a minor
point but this has been used to provide a misleading picture of
donation post-anonymity. We regret the Department's poor use of
evidence in policy-making.
Amendment proposed, in line 21, to leave out from
the word "We" to the end of the paragraph.—(Paul
Farrelly.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 |
| Noes, 4 |
| | |
| Paul Farrelly | | Dr Evan Harris
|
| | Dr Brian Iddon
|
| | Mr Robert Key
|
| | Dr Desmond Turner
|
Amendment disagreed to.
Another Amendment made.
Paragraph, as amended, agreed to.
Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | | Noes, 1
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
| Mr Robert Key | |
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 155 to 156 (now paragraphs 156 to 157) read and agreed
to.
A paragraph—(Dr Evan Harris)—brought up, read
and inserted (now paragraph 158).
Paragraphs 157 to 181 (now paragraphs 158 to 182) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 182 (now paragraph 184) read as follows:
Section 41 sets out the offences for breaching the provisions
of the HFE Act or contravening licence conditions. In the cases
of placing in a woman a live embryo other than a human embryo
or any live gametes other than human gametes, mixing animal and
human gametes, placing a human embryo in an animal or keeping
or using an embryo after 14 days, the penalty is up to 10 years
in prison. We have commented on the various prohibitions in the
HFE Act and concluded that legislation should be more flexible,
particularly with regard to research (see paragraphs 331-342).
We are also concerned by the size of the maximum sentence. That
the embryo only gradually acquires human rights is a widely accepted
view. In this light, the maximum sentence of 10 years for breaching
some of the prohibitions in the HFE Act seem unduly harsh.
Amendment proposed, in line 8, to leave out from the word "We"
to the end of the paragraph and add the words "Once those
boundaries have been set, however, it is right that breaches of
the law or regulations should attract harsh sentences to a act
as an effective deterrent in this age of rapid scientific advance
and competition.".—(Paul Farrelly.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 | | Noes, 4
|
| | |
| Paul Farrelly | | Dr Evan Harris
|
| | Dr Brian Iddon
|
| | Mr Robert Key
|
| | Dr Desmond Turner
|
Amendment disagreed to.
Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | | Noes, 1
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
| Mr Robert Key | |
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 183 to 359 (now paragraphs 185 to 361) read and agreed
to.
Paragraph 360 (now paragraph 362) read as follows:
The HFEA's consultation on sex selection makes a good case history.
As well as disappointing groups such as CORE for having ignored
the opinion it elicited, it has been criticised for giving it
too much weight. We were aware of these pitfalls in planning our
own online consultation and hope we have been able to show how
we have used the views put to us to reach our conclusions. At
the same time, we made no efforts to quantify the views submitted.
We commented above that when the Department sought the HFEA's
view on sex selection, it was not necessarily asking for the public's
view. We believe that the HFEA would have been well-advised to
adopt our approach, for having found that a large majority did
not wish to see sex selection for social reasons it would have
been very brave to conclude otherwise, unless serious ethical
debate was engaged in and principles could be identified which
justified proceeding on the basis of these rather than the numbers
opposed. The Medical Research Council has suggested that the HFEA
should consider setting up a citizens council to help guide it
through ethical decision-making. This has the attraction of providing
ongoing public input. Surveys and opinion polls provide useful
input to policy development, but are essentially anecdotal and
represent the views of a self-selecting group of individuals;
often activists. Additionally, we would caution about using the
weight of response to determine the outcome of any policy review.
Amendment proposed, in line 5, to leave out from
the word "conclusions." to the end of the paragraph
and to add the words "At the same time we made no efforts
to quantify the views submitted, which may be seen by some as
a serious drawback to our approach.".—(Paul Farrelly.)
Question put, that the Amendment be made.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 1 |
| Noes, 4 |
| | |
| Paul Farrelly | | Dr Evan Harris
|
| | Dr Brian Iddon
|
| | Mr Robert Key
|
| | Dr Desmond Turner
|
Amendment disagreed to.
Question put, that the paragraph stand part of the Report.
The Committee divided.
| Ayes, 4 | | Noes, 1
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
| Mr Robert Key | |
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Paragraph agreed to.
Paragraphs 361 to 399 (now paragraphs 363 to 401) read and agreed
to.
Motion made, and Question put, That the Report, as amended, be
the Sixth Report of the Committee to the House.
The Committee divided:
| Ayes, 4 | | Noes, 1
|
| | |
| Dr Evan Harris | | Paul Farrelly
|
| Dr Brian Iddon | |
|
| Mr Robert Key | |
|
| Dr Desmond Turner | |
|
Resolved, That the Report be the Sixth Report of the Committee
to the House.
Ordered, That the Chairman do make the Report to the House.
Ordered, That the provisions of Standing Order No. 134
(Select Committee (reports)) be applied to the Report.
[Adjourned till Wednesday 16 March at 9 o'clock .
| 
