APPENDIX 11
Memorandum from the All-Party Parliamentary
Pro-life Group
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1. The All-Party Parliamentary Pro-life
Group is committed to upholding the sanctity of human life from
conception until natural death.
2. The human embryo and the human foetus
should be accorded the same degree of respect as any other human
being. It follows that destructive embryo research and direct
abortion are never acceptable.[26]
The Geneva Convention Code of Mental Ethics (World
Medical Association in 1949)
"I will maintain the utmost respect
for human life from the time of conception; even under threat.
I will not use my medical contrary to the law humanity."
The Declaration of Helsinki (WMA, as revised 1975)
"In research on man, the interest of
science and society should never take precedence over considerations
related to the well-being of the subject."
"The doctor can combine medical research with
professional care, the objective being the acquisition of new
medical knowledge, only to the extent that medical research is
justified by its potential diagnostic and therapeutic value for
the patient."
3. Parliament must assume a far greater
role in the regulation of human reproductive technologies than
it has at present.
4. Reproductive freedom must be set within
clear ethical boundaries that recognise the intrinsic dignity
of the human embryo, foetus and his or her parents. Their interests
must always prevail over those of science and society.
THE ROLE
OF PARLIAMENT
5. We would like to thank the House of Commons
Science and Technology Committee for launching this review into
human reproductive technologies and the law and for giving us
the opportunity to make this submission.
6. It is almost 15 years since Parliament
passed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. We recognise
that issues such as abortion, embryo research and cloning are
divisive and contentious. However, we regret that this is the
first substantive opportunity that our democratically elected
Parliament has had since 1990 to consider these issues and to
review the many scientific developments that have taken place.
7. Bioethics will be at the forefront of
political discourse in the 21st century. It is for Parliament,
not unelected quangos like the HFEA, to make decisions in this
area. The Science and Technology Committee made this point in
its 2002 report, Developments in Human Genetics and Embryology:
"Parliament does not need protecting
and democracy is not served by unelected quangos taking decisions
on behalf of Parliament." [27]
8. We hope that this inquiry will mark the
beginning of Parliament's re-engagement with bioethical issues.
It is simply not good enough for Parliament to legislate in this
field and then wash its hands of the matter for a decade or so.
This allows unelected, unaccountable and arrogant quangos such
as the HFEA to assume decision making powers that are far beyond
what is acceptable in a parliamentary democracy. In the absence
of proper parliamentary scrutiny science's relationship with society
has been placed under increasing strain. By re-engaging with these
issues Parliament can help to restore public confidence in science
and bioethics.
9. In this submission we have chosen to
focus on four particular issues; abortion, the role of the HFEA,
embryo research and fertility treatment.
ABORTION
10. We are committed to repeal of the Abortion
Act 1967 and to the building of a society that cherishes both
the life of the unborn child and the life of the mother. Crucial
to the attainment of these objectives is the universal provision
of practical, financial and (where desired) spiritual support
for those affected by crisis pregnancies.
11. For a society purportedly committed
to the promotion of universal human rights it is an outrage that
we continue to abort over 175,000 unborn children each year. In
2002, the latest year for which statistics are available, there
were 175,600 abortions performed in England and Wales.[28]
12. By allowing abortion up to 24 weeks
gestation for, in practice, any reason whatsoever[29]
and abortion up to birth for "serious" handicap[30]
we have the most liberal abortion law anywhere in Europe. In most
European countries where abortion is legal the time limit for
abortion is 12 weeks.
13. As a first step towards repeal of the
Abortion Act the legal time limit for abortion in the UK should
be reduced to bring us into line with our European counterparts.
At the very least, the legal time limit should reflect scientific
knowledge on foetal sentience and viability. The current time
limit of 24 weeks does not.
14. A reduction in the time limit for abortions
must not be accompanied by repeal of the current requirement for
every abortion to be approved "in good faith" by two
medical practitioners.[31]
Nor should it be accompanied by liberalisation of the law on medical
abortion to allow women to self-administer the pills necessary
to procure a medical abortion at somewhere other than a licensed
medical establishment.
15. Abortion is a medical procedure. In
view of the well-established physical and psychological risks
associated with abortion, in particular medical abortion[32],
women considering an abortion must receive proper advice from
doctors prior to reaching a decision. We regret that the so-called
"two-doctor" requirement has become little more than
a rubber-stamping exercise. This must change, primarily through
educating doctors that women considering abortion can only give
their free and informed consent to the procedure when they know
exactly what abortion entails. So long as women have the "right
to choose" they must also have the right to know.
16. We would also like to see the repeal
of section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act.[33]
In the years 1968 to 2001 inclusive, there were 4.56 million reported
abortions performed on residents of England and Wales. Of these,
63,897, or 1.4%, were performed under section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion
Act. The Government has acknowledged[34]
that the term "seriously handicapped" has not been interpreted
by any court decisions.
17. Since 1990 the number of abortions performed
under section 1(1)(d) has increased substantially. In 1990 there
were a total of 1,601 such abortions, 21 after 24 weeks gestation.
In 1995 these figures had increased to 1,828, 63 after 24 weeks
gestation. In 2002 there were a total of 1,863 abortions performed
for disability, 110 after 24 weeks gestation.
18. A closer analysis of these disturbing
figures proffers further cause for concern. In 2002, 83 abortions
were performed for "other malformations of the brain",
19 of these after 24 weeks gestation. Four abortions were performed
for "eye, ear, face and neck" malformations, 13 post-24
week abortions were performed for malformations of "the cardiovascular
system" and 19 abortions were performed for malformations
of "the respiratory system", four after 23 weeks gestation.
This vague classification is not good enough. When unborn lives
are terminated for disability the least we should expect is a
proper explanation of why.
19. In June 1990, during the parliamentary
debates on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, members
of our group argued that the proposed legislation would lead to
abortion up to birth in a disturbingly wide range of cases and
that some doctors would interpret it as authorising abortion for
cleft lip or cleft palate. Our interpretation was ridiculed. We
were accused of "scaremongering".[35]
Since 1995 there have been 26 abortions for suspected cleft lip
and palate, one after 24 weeks gestation.
20. Section 1(1)(d) is being flouted on
a regular basis and should be repealed. When the lives of unborn
children are being terminated because of suspected cleft lip or
cleft palate, or Down's syndrome, or ill defined malformations
of "the eye, ear, face and neck" or the "respiratory
system" then we are witnessing the practice of eugenics in
21st century Britain.
21. Disability rights groups including the
Disability Rights Commission and Disability Awareness in Action
feel that a law that allows abortion up to birth for disability
whilst allowing abortion up to 24 weeks gestation in almost all
other cases is discriminatory and reinforces negative stereotypes
of disability.
22. We trust that the Committee will give
serious consideration to this particular issue.
THE HUMAN
FERTILISATION AND
EMBRYOLOGY AUTHORITY
23. The Science and Technology Committee's
2002 report Developments in Human Genetics and Embryology
was highly critical of the HFEA:
"The Lords Stem Cell Research Committee
reported that the HFEA's is `highly regarded, both at home and
abroad. . . [and] has the full confidence of the scientific and
medical research community'. We are unclear on what evidence it
based this assertion." [36]
24. Despite attempts at modest reform the
HFEA still lacks the confidence of the general public. Its accountability
to Parliament, and by extension the public, must be enhanced.
We recommend that the HFEA be required to appear annually before
a parliamentary committee in order to account for its actions.
25. We also recommend that the HFEA's advisory
and regulatory functions be separated. The HFEA should no longer
be responsible for ethical decisions such as those on tissue typing
or sex selection. Rather, the Government should appoint a "Bioethics
Commission" along similar lines as the US President's Council
on Bioethics. This commission, comprising leading scientists,
philosophers and theologians, should be tasked with reviewing
the latest developments in bioethics and reporting back to the
Government with its recommendations. Unlike the HFEA, not all
of the members of the commission would have to endorse the principle
of destructive embryo research. This would promote more rigorous
debate and scrutiny than at present. Where appropriate, minority
reports could be issued.
26. Once the Government has received the
commission's report Parliament should then be given the opportunity
to accept or reject its recommendations.
27. A bioethics commission along these lines
would greatly enhance accountability, transparency and parliamentary
sovereignty. Stem cell technology and human cloning are not extensions
of assisted reproduction, but involve a multitude of scientific
and medical fields which embrace nearly all aspects of disease.
We need a new and completely independent body to monitor and assess
developments in this field.
28. The HFEA should be tasked with effectively
regulating the burgeoning fertility industry. Its primary roles
should be the licensing and inspection of fertility clinics. In
order to reflect its new role the HFEA's name should be changed
to the "Human Fertilisation and Embryology Protection Authority".
EMBRYO RESEARCH
29. We maintain that human embryos are nascent
human beings and that all destructive research on human embryos,
regardless of the potential benefits, is unethical. We remain
profoundly concerned about the effect on society of our treating
nascent human life as a natural resource to be mined, exploited
and commodified.
30. As Professor Leon Kass, Chair of the
US President's Council on Bioethics has said: "People
who can hold nascent human life in their hands unblinkingly and
without awe have deadened something in their souls."
31. The significance of conception as the
starting point of our human existence is illustrated by an article
in the prestigious "Nature" magazine dated 4
July 2002. Headed, "Your destiny, from day one"
the article states, "Your world was shaped in the first
24 hours after conception. Where your head and feet would sprout,
and which side would form your back and which your belly, were
being defined in the minutes and hours after sperm and egg united."
32. Figures disclosed by Department of Health[37]
show that since 1991, 925,747 embryos have been created through
in vitro fertilisation (IVF) treatment. 294,584 embryos
remained unused during the course of IVF treatment cycles and
were therefore destroyed. Only 4% of these embryos ever saw the
light of day.
33. It is impossible to reconcile this unprecedented
destruction of nascent human beings with the so-called "respect
for the embryo" coined by the Warnock Committee, subsequently
reflected in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and
repeatedly referred to by the Government and the HFEA.
34. Baroness Warnock has been honest enough
to recognise this. She has referred to the "absurdities"
of the current legislative and regulatory framework.[38]
35. We are quite clear when human life begins
and from when it should enjoy protection. As the earlier quote
from Nature indicates, we now know far more about the development
of the early human embryo than we did in 1990. Those who take
a different view from us on the status of the human embryo must
desist from repeating the mantra that the human embryo has "special
status" and relying upon the arbitrary 14 day time limit
in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
36. In the absence of unanimity on the ethical
status of the human embryo there is a broad consensus that destructive
embryo research should not be permitted if there is a viable scientific
alternative.
37. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: "the
1990 Act already provides the answer to the question of what happens
if and when research into adult cells overtakes research using
embryos: embryonic research would have to stop because the use
of embryos would no longer be necessary for that research."
[39]
38. In the exciting field of stem cell research
adult stem cell research is a viable scientific alternative. We
are happy to support such ethical scientific research. Unlike
embryonic stem cell research it is delivering results, not merely
demonstrating potential.
39. We hope that the Science and Technology
Committee will give greater consideration to adult stem cell research
than that given by the House of Lords Select Committee on Stem
Cell Research. That Committee's analysis of stem cell research
was deeply flawed and misleading, particularly in its assessment
of adult stem cell research.
40. Clear evidence has been provided from
peer-reviewed journals of success using adult stem cells not only
in experimental models of diabetes, severed spinal cord, multiple
sclerosis, heart attack, stroke, traumatic brain injury, liver
failure, Parkinson's Disease, Alzheimer's Disease, various forms
of blindness, full-thickness burns, severe bone disease, but also—in
stark contrast to human embryonic stem cells—in clinical
studies of patients with acute and chronic heart disease, metabolic
diseases and bone disorders.
41. Adult stem cell applications are ahead
of the hypothetical promises surrounding human embryonic stem
cells and are retrievable without the ethical concerns associated
with embryonic stem cells.
42. For example, a recent Paediatric Bone
Marrow and Stem Cell Transplant project at Duke University in
America reports the transplant of cord blood stem cells from a
baby girl donated to a four year old boy suffering from a rare
metabolic disease. The boy sadly died of an unrelated infection
but the transplant itself was successful and post-mortem analysis
showed that the girl's umbilical stem cells had reached the damaged
tissue and differentiated into repair cells.
43. No stem cell is more readily accessible
or cheaper to store than those found in the umbilical cords of
newborn babies. The US administration has recently approved major
funding for research and harvesting of cord blood. It is time
the UK followed suit.
44. Notwithstanding our ethical objections
to destructive embryo research there are also innumerable practical
obstacles to embryonic stem cell research.
45. There are known serious risks of tumour
and cancer formation associated with embryonic stem cells. These
must be properly investigated.
46. Perhaps the greatest obstacle to embryonic
stem cell research and so-called "therapeutic" cloning
on the scale envisaged by some is the shortage of eggs. Bearing
in mind that it took 277 sheep eggs to achieve one cloned "Dolly"
it can be seen that scientists require eggs on a monumental scale
for their proposed research. In recent weeks doubts have arisen
about the ethics underpinning the relationship between the scientists
in the South Korean laboratory that successfully cloned human
embryos and their egg donors.
47. Egg harvesting is potentially dangerous
in the short term even for those undergoing treatment for infertility,
and we have inadequate knowledge as to the long-term effects of
the drugs employed. We are therefore profoundly concerned that
the Government appears to be promoting egg donation, a process
which exploits women, offends against the integrity and dignity
of their bodies, and which can actually prove lethal.[40]
Women must not be exploited by the new artificial reproductive
technologies. It is incumbent upon Parliament to protect them.
48. It is also incumbent upon Parliament
to prohibit other types of research that are being proposed. These
include the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos, the creation
of artificial gametes, the use of eggs from aborted unborn girls
for use in scientific research and cross-implantation. Some of
these research proposals arise from concern amongst certain scientists
about the shortage of human eggs for their work. The answer, however,
is not to debase our human dignity by authorising such research
but rather to promote ethical alternatives, most notably using
adult stem cells.
4. FERTILITY
TREATMENT
49. We would draw the Committee's attention
to legislation passed by the Italian Parliament last year which
banned the use of donor sperm or donor eggs, surrogacy and embryo
freezing and stipulated that assisted reproduction should only
be available within stable heterosexual relationships.
50. We commend this legislative framework.
The right to life of the human embryo is respected to a far greater
extent than in this country, so too is the welfare of the child
being created, particularly his or her need for a mother and father.
51. In the course of your inquiry we hope
that you will resist demands from a libertarian minority to dilute
section 13(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.
Where fertility treatment is concerned, the welfare of the child,
including his or her need for a father, must be the paramount
consideration.
May 2004
26 We consider that the treatment of the human embryo
and the human foetus should be governed by the established principles
of medical ethics as set out in the Declarations of Geneva and
Helsinki. The most relevant sections are: Back
27
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Fourth Report,
"Developments in Human Genetics and Embryology".
Paragraph 18. 18 July 2002 HC 791. Back
28
Abortion Statistics, England and Wales: 2002 http://www.publications.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0323_pdf Back
29
Section 1(1)(a), Abortion Act 1967 (as amended). Back
30
Section 1(1)(d), Abortion Act 1967 (as amended). Back
31
Section 1(1), Abortion Act 1967 (as amended). Back
32
These include heavy bleeding, severe cramping, nausea and vomiting. Back
33
Abortion is authorised where there is a substantial risk that
if the child were born it would suffer from such physical or mental
abnormalities as to be seriously handicapped. Back
34
House of Commons Hansard, 30 January 2004 Col 557W. Back
35
House of Commons Hansard, 21 June 1990 Col 1187. Back
36
House of Commons Science and Technology Committee Fourth Report,
"Developments in Human Genetics and Embryology".
Paragraph 7. 18 July 2002 HC 791. Back
37
House of Lords Hansard, 7 November 2002 Col WA145. Back
38
House of Lords Hansard, 5 December 2002 Col 1327. Back
39
House of Lords Hansard, 22 January 2001 Col 120. Back
40
House of Commons Hansard, 19 May 2004 Col 1011W. Back
| 
