APPENDIX 17
Memorandum from the Church of England
Community and Public Affairs Unit
1. The terms of reference of the Church
of England's Community and Public Affairs Unit require it to assist
in the Church in making a constructive and informed response to
issues facing contemporary society. The Unit reports to the Archbishops'
Council and, through it, to the General Synod.
2. The Unit warmly welcomes the Science
and Technology's decision to issue a Consultation Document on
human reproduction and the law.
The balance between legislation, regulation and
reproductive freedom; the role of Parliament in relation to reproductive
technologies; the ethical framework for legislation
3. Reproductive matters fall within the
law for the protection of people, including unborn people; for
the avoidance of exploitation in an area of life where people
are peculiarly vulnerable; and for the maintenance of public respect
for the value and "given" quality of human life.
4. We are hesitant about some appeals to
human rights sometimes heard in this debate. Children have a right
to be brought up in circumstances which conduce to their well-being,
but we are profoundly suspicious of the "right to have a
child" when this involves more than normal corrective procedures.
One reason for our view is that the belief that one has such a
right may only intensify the pain of childlessness. We prefer
to base our thinking on the privilege of having children and the
danger of treating them as possessions.
5. There is however the right to seek treatment;
and the right to be referred to a second doctor or clinic if the
first does not wish to treat, for whatever reason.
6. The question has been raised about the
need for a father, currently enshrined in the 1990 legislation.
There is pressure from some ethical and legal commentators to
have this clause removed, arguing that there is no reliable empirical
evidence to support it, and that it discriminates against families
without fathers. Whilst we recognise that families, however eccentric
their form, may well be successful if they are loving, we would
be very concerned to see this clause dropped. Such a step should
not be taken without further serious debate and examination of
its likely consequences.
7. Similarly there is some pressure to remove
the need for both parties to consent to the use or destruction
of frozen embryos. Laboratories or clinics which store frozen
embryos need certainty when application is made to use or to destroy
an embryo that they hold. Otherwise they might be in danger of
being sued or losing their license. They should not have the responsibility
of deciding what is to become of the embryos in their charge.
This is a matter for the law and again, we resist the pressure
to change it, and urge further serious debate which takes account
of long-term social consequences, not just the immediate problems
of individuals.
8. Legislation is appropriate where clear
lines can be drawn, and where the moral and legal framework within
which decisions are made can be precisely specified. The 14 day
rule is an example; agreement on that made it possible to have
a regulatory authority which could carefully examine specific
applications in the areas of fertility treatment and research,
including, now, embryonic stem cell research. Any alteration to
this 14 day rule would be a breach of the trust on which the HFEA
legislation was based. Such "lines in the sand" should
only be changed after full public debate.
9. Regulation within legal guidelines makes
good sense when the issues are technical and when a research field
is undergoing rapid development, though the experts should remain
morally accountable to the wider community. Matters such as abortion
and surrogacy do not fit into this category because the issues
surrounding them are by and large non-technical, public, and easy
to understand, and therefore can benefit from public debate. The
HFEA could presumably advise Parliament on, for example, the issue
of viability outside the womb, but we think it important not to
overload the HFEA with decisions which are marginal to its primary
remit. A similar point can be made about the question of anonymity
of gamete donors.
10. The situation in the UK compares favourably
with that of the US, where only Federally funded research is ethically
controlled whereas in the private sector (in most states) anything
is permitted.
The context of other legislation in the UK, EU
and internationally
11. There are advantages in trying to harmonise
international legislation on these sorts of matters, if only to
avoid tempting people to go abroad for illicit procedures. As
Christians we believe that ethical principles are more than the
concern of a particular society at a particular time. We believe
we should, therefore, look to others as well as ourselves to develop
appropriate protections. We recognise, however, that nothing for
years to come is going to bring Germany into line with the rest
of Europe. If this means that German women go abroad for treatment
this is a matter for the Germans to address.
Challenges from new research and treatment and
from changes in ethical and societal attitudes
12. We are interested to know where the
measurement of change in society's attitudes to morality is taking
place, and how such changes will be judged: are they an improvement
or not?
13. Some principles ought to be inviolable,
whatever the current ethical fashion. Among these are the respect
for the life and integrity of persons, understood as an increasing
imperative during pre-natal development, plus the safeguarding
of this value and integrity by societal arrangements which forbid
practices capable in the long or short term of undermining them.
The medical profession, by its nature, has to concentrate on the
immediate problems of individuals. It is therefore essential that
the law is so framed as to take account of the wider social consequences
of individual choices.
14. We would like reassurance that the Committee
is asking key questions about human purpose and meaning. These
are important to test the assumptions which may be underlying
its approaches to human reproductive technologies and the role
of the law.
The role of the HFEA
15. The HFEA has coped well with new issues
which have arisen since 1990. New developments are arising all
the time, which is an important reason for having a regulatory
authority.
16. We believe that the HFEA should continue
with a well-focused remit which corresponds to the scope of its
expertise. It would be a mistake, in our view, for the Authority
to widen its remit to include matters such as surrogacy, adoption
and confidentiality, which arguably all fall within the area of
child protection. They raise very different questions from those
related to stem cells, CNR, sex selection and ante-natal diagnosis.
These latter clearly fall within the scope of the Authority's
expertise.
May 2004
| 
