APPENDIX 5: REPORT OF EVENING FORUM
Attendance:
The Rt Revd Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon, Church
of England; Dr Donald Bruce, Science, Religion and Technology
Project, Church of Scotland; Dr Daniel Boucher, Director
of Parliamentary Affairs, CARE; Dr Andrew Fergusson, Head
of Communications, Christian Medical Fellowship; Andrea Minichiello
Williams, Public Policy Director, Lawyers Christian Fellowship;
Rachel Bell, Associate Director, BioCentre: Centre for Bioethics
and Public Policy; Paul Tully, General Secretary, Society for
the Protection of Unborn Children; Josephine Quintavalle, Comment
on Reproductive Ethics; Julia Millington, Political Director,
ProLife Alliance; Professor Neil Scolding, University of
Bristol, on behalf of the APPG Pro-life Group; Sarah Veale, Head,
Equality and Employment Rights Department, TUC.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman,
introduced the session and noted the apologies of members of the
Committee unable to attend. Unfortunately the date of the event
had been changed so as not to clash with the HFEA consultation
event. Mr Willis explained that the timetable for the Committee's
inquiry had been set by the two Houses (rather than the Committee)
and the Committee had been directed to report by the 25th July
2007. The Committee had been concerned that the time given was
too little, but had agreed that it was important that the draft
Bill was scrutinised before the summer, as it was expected to
be included in the Queen's speech this year.
Mr Willis stated that the Committee would give
equal consideration to written and oral evidence and that if further
written submissions were made to the Committee after the forum,
they would be accepted by the Committee and considered as part
of its deliberation.
19 organisations had been invited to the evening
forum, in particular those organisations representing faith groups
or others with particular ethical perspectives. The Committee
had decided that it was more appropriate to hold a discussion
forum, inviting all these organisations, rather than to select
a few to give evidence within the practical constraints of a formal
oral evidence session.
The following organisations had been invited to the
forum but were either unable to attend or had not responded to
the invitation: Catholic Church/Linacre Centre; Office of the
Chief Rabbi; Muslim Council of Britain; Muslim Doctors and Dentists
Association; Evangelical Alliance; Medical Ethics Alliance; Human
Genetics Alert; Scottish Council on Human Bioethics; LIFE; Fawcett
Society; and Women's Institute.
Mr Willis noted that the session was not covered
by parliamentary privilege, and that a note of the forum would
be produced and circulated to participants for comment. Each attendee
would be given the chance to make a short opening statement and
then discussion would focus on four distinct areas: the ethical
framework of RATE, hybrid embryos, embryo testing, and parenthood.
Finally, the issue of public opinion and how to engage with the
public would be discussed.
Opening statements
Rt Revd Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon,
stated that he represented the Mission of Public Affairs Council
of the Church of England. Dr Rayfield said that he took a
gradualist approach of the human embryo. This did not mean opposition
to research on embryos per se, but that it was important
to preserve the special status of the embryo. It was important
to consider how ethics could be maintained and supervised.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman,
asked whether he felt there was a lack of an ethical framework
in the draft Bill.
Rt Revd Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon,
answered no, but said that there were some concerns, particularly
around views coming from the Commons Science and Technology Committee,
which were seen as pushing the ethics a long way down the line.
Dr Rayfield stated that the burden being placed on one regulator
under the RATE proposal was not practical. Dr Rayfield sat
on an ethical authority which was an advisory Committee in relation
to gene therapy. Tissues and embryos should be considered by two
distinct bodies and there should also be another independent body
which could provide support on the ethical side[154].
Dr Daniel Boucher, Director of Parliamentary
Affairs, CARE, highlighted the importance
of fathers. The draft Bill should not remove but enhance the need
for the father provision. Removal of the need for a father provision
would endorse fatherlessness and sent the wrong messages.
Paul Tully, General Secretary, Society for the
Protection of Unborn Children, said that
the ethical basis of the draft Bill was lacking and that the special
status of the embryo was not preserved. Embryos should be protected
from the time of conception. There was no rationale for a gradualist
approach.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman,
sought clarification of whether this position entailed rejection
of the principles of the Warnock report. Paul Tully said
it meant rejecting the conclusions of the Warnock Report, but
that the Warnock Report had acknowledged the "special status"
of the human embryo.[155].
Andrea Minichiello Williams, Public Policy Director,
Lawyers Christian Fellowship, stressed
the need for proper systems when issues under consideration essentially
re-define humanity. In particular this referred to the regulation
of inter-species embryos. The welfare of the child was of paramount
importance. Ms Williams represented opposition to animal-human
hybrids. Josephine Quintavalle, Comment on Reproductive Ethics,
was in favour of absolute respect for the embryo. The problem
was how the new types of embryo dealt with in the draft Bill were
defined.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman,
asked whether Ms Quintavalle understood the definitions in the
Bill.
Josephine Quintavalle, Comment on Reproductive
Ethics, answered no. She also raised the
issue of women's heath in relation to assisted reproduction and
mentioned the 'Hands Off Our Ovaries' campaign of which CORE is
a member. She stated that she represented opposition to eggs being
harvested for research purposes. The justification for using eggs
for research had not been borne out. The 1990 Act made reference
to the criteria of necessary and desirable.
Julia Millington, Political Director, ProLife
Alliance, stated that she represented
opposition to all experimentation on embryos. To deliberately
create a life for experimentation was morally wrong.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman,
asked whether this meant opposition to IVF.
Julia Millington, Political Director, ProLife
Alliance, said that it was not opposition
to IVF in principle, but that there was opposition to freezing
embryos. The storage and destruction of embryos in the IVF process
was problematic.
Professor Neil Scolding, University of Bristol,
on behalf of the APPG Pro-life Group,
stated that there was no new justification, since the original
legislation in this area, for overriding the special status of
the embryo. The original legislation had permitted experimentation
for the development of therapies. In the case of the draft Bill
there was not the same justification. The Bill would permit research
on the basis of curiosity. Professor Scolding emphasised
that there now existed strong alternatives to embryo experimentation.
Embryonic stem cell science had moved forward and the material
needed could now be made from adult stem cells by reliable but
very new methods of artifical 'de-differentiation'. This altered
the whole perspective on embryo experimentation.
Sarah Veale, Head, Equality and Employment Rights
Department, TUC, said that the TUC was
a secular organisation, its membership comprised those of all
faiths and none. The TUC had submitted evidence to the Warnock
inquiry, which was lay evidence as the TUC did not have scientific
expertise. The TUC supported work to aid fertility and inherited
disorders. If this could be done without embryo testing that would
be even better. The TUC also had a pro-choice policy and would
oppose any attempts to reduce time limits on abortion when the
Bill was in Parliament.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman,
clarified that the subject of abortion was not within the remit
of the Joint Committee's inquiry.
Rachel Bell, Associate Director, BioCentre: Centre
for Bioethics and Public Policy, explained
that her organisation looked at the impact of emerging technologies
and had commissioned a working group eight months ago to look
at hybrid chimeras and human and non-human combinations. This
reported a month ago and made twenty recommendations, some consistent
and some inconsistent with the draft Bill. The main issue was
the creation of human embryos for research purposed and the use
of human and non-human biological material.
Dr Donald Bruce, Science, Religion and Technology
Project, Church of Scotland, that the
SRT project had developed policy through looking at ethical issues
and technology such as cloning and stem cell research developed.
He represented a view similar to the first speaker, which could
be summarised as "no, unless". In other words 'no' to
embryo testing except under very specific circumstances. There
was a sense that the special status of the embryo was under threat.
It was necessary to allow for basic research but there was a question
of what research was justifiable.
Dr Andrew Fergusson, Head of Communications,
Christian Medical Fellowship, said that
his organisation represented 5,000 British doctors and 1,200 medical
students. Within this group there were a range of views but the
majority were in favour of an absolutist position on the status
of the embryo. A single cell embryo should be viewed as a human
and afforded respect and protection. On the question of whether
he was happy with the ethical framework in the draft Bill, he
said he would pose the question: what is the ethical framework
of the draft Bill? There was a pre-supposition built into the
arguments on this issue that it necessarily entailed a war of
Judaeo-Christian and Secular-Humanist world views.
On the subject of competition and commerce, the argument
had been put forward that the UK needed to stay ahead in the technological
race. In this sense a parallel could be drawn with slavery which,
was seen at the time, as an economic necessity.
It was possible to live with the 1990 Act but there
was a responsibility not to let the situation get worse.
The ethical framework of RATE
Phil Willis MP, Chairman,
noted that, as only a few witnesses had been concerned with the
constitution of the regulator, he would try to deal with this
topic as quickly as possible.
Rt Revd Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon,
stated that the HFEA had had to deal with an increasing number
of new research processes and this had caused significant strain.
It was difficult in these circumstances for ethical advisers within
the regulator to be effective. He would not like to see RATE suffer
from the same problems. He suggested that a separate ethical committee
should be set up to consider novel procedures and adjudicate on
how these should be regulated. Presently, those who take an absolutist
view of the rights of embryos are effectively excluded from ethical
decision making. Their contributions could, nevertheless, be extremely
valuable. This would also reflect our concern to be a liberal
democracy.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman,
asked whether this ethical committee should be a permanent, standing
committee within RATE.
Rt Revd Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon,
agreed that something along those lines would be appropriate.
Dr Ian Gibson MP,
asked what the HFEA was currently doing wrong.
Rt Revd Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon,
replied that the HFEA was taking decisions on difficult matters
of Parliamentary concern and gave the example of the decision
to allow the selection through PGD of saviour siblings.
Dr Donald Bruce, Science, Religion and Technology
Project, Church of Scotland, expressed
concerns about the HFEA both acting as regulator as well as having
ethical oversight of the research field. He thought that the question
of whether Parliament or the regulator should decide how a particular
issue should be regulated rather depended on the nature of the
issue and its gravity.
Dr Daniel Boucher, Director of Parliamentary
Affairs, CARE, supported the establishment
of a national bioethics committee because of the inherent conflict
within RATE arising from its activities as a regulator funded
through licence fees. Dr Boucher agreed with the Bishop of
Swindon that a range of different interests and perspectives should
be represented on the national bioethics committee.
Josephine Quintavalle, Comment on Reproductive
Ethics, wished to register opposition
to the establishment of RATE. There were inherent conflicts between
the HFEA and the HTA which would be merged under RATE. The HFEA's
primary role was to protect fertility patients. She could not
understand why such a serious function should be combined with
the regulation of research on inter-species embryos.
Dr Andrew Fergusson, Head of Communications,
Christian Medical Fellowship, argued that
the most serious problem with RATE was logistical. Large organisations
tended to be overly cumbersome and ineffective and this was why,
for example, the Home Office had been split up.
Sarah Veale, Head, Equality and Employment Rights
Department, TUC, said that the TUC had
not considered RATE as an issue.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, Public Policy Director,
Lawyers Christian Fellowship, commented
that Parliament, not the regulator, should have the final say
on the regulation of new, scientific developments.
Hybrid embryos
Phil Willis MP, Chairman,
moved the discussion on to the legislation for and regulation
of inter-species embryos.
Dr Donald Bruce, Science, Religion and Technology
Project, Church of Scotland, commented
that the Church of Scotland had looked at this issue several years
ago. What marked this research out from other areas of research
was the mixing of reproductive cells. Even if the resulting entity
was ultimately non-viable, its non-viability may, in and of itself,
be morally wrong. He rejected the claims which had been made in
relation to the scientific usefulness of this technique.
Lord Winston asked Dr Bruce
to explain the moral objection to an entity which was, after all,
non-viable.
Dr Donald Bruce, Science, Religion and Technology
Project, Church of Scotland, said that
if one took the view that this entity was primarily an embryo,
then the argument went that researchers had spoiled that embryo
and it was as a result of this that the embryo was non-viable.
Thus, it is the spoiling of the embryo which is morally objectionable.
This follows the logic set out in the Warnock report. The Church
of Scotland was opposed to all work on inter-species embryos.
However, it would support research using human eggs, even if those
eggs were cloned.
Paul Tully, General Secretary, Society for the
Protection of Unborn Children, argued
that a cytoplasmic embryo was, effectively, a human embryo. However,
when animal and human gametes were mixed to create a "true"
hybrid, it was impossible to know whether the resulting entity
would be animal or human. It was precisely because of this uncertainty
that the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children objected
to the creation of "true" hybrids, because the moral
status of the resulting entity was not known.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
asked what the characteristics were which made an organism human.
Paul Tully, General Secretary, Society for the
Protection of Unborn Children, stated
that all embryos went back to a single cell. The appearance of
the primitive streak did not indicate the start of anything in
particular. Differentiation of cells started from conception,
and there was some evidence to support this.
Josephine Quintavalle, Comment on Reproductive
Ethics, stated her objections to inter-species
embryos as being neither necessary nor desirable. There were three
reasons why clarity in this area was needed. First, some aspects
of this area were devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Second,
a clear definitions of inter-species embryos were required for
the purposes of the new EU Tissues and Cells Directive. Third,
the HFEA was soon to take a decision regarding licence applications
relating to this subject. She noted a high degree of controversy
in this area and stated that her organisation together with the
Lawyers Christian Fellowship had taken legal opinion on the issue
which was protected by legal professional privilege.
Dr Andrew Fergusson, Head of Communications,
Christian Medical Fellowship, noted that
scientists and others remained unclear about the significance
and effects of research in this field. This was not solely a quantitative
debate. The debate had significant qualitative aspects and many
different perspectives should be taken into account, including
ethics and theology. There was no need to rush such an important
decision.
Lord Winston commented
that from the perspective of the Jewish faith, it was important
to protect life at a somewhat later stage than the embryonic stage.
Other faiths and cultures would have different perspectives. He
asked how a pluralistic society should resolve such issues.
Dr Andrew Fergusson, Head of Communications,
Christian Medical Fellowship, stated that
if there was uncertainty, then the benefit of the doubt should
be given and the cautious route taken.
Mr Doug Naysmith MP,
thought it was possible and desirable to combine philosophy and
science in a reasonable debate.
Dr Andrew Fergusson, Head of Communications,
Christian Medical Fellowship, agreed that
scientists needed to engage in philosophical debate.
Dr Donald Bruce, Science, Religion and Technology
Project, Church of Scotland, commented
that arguments for the creation and use of inter-species embryos
had been made on the assumption that the entity was not deserving
of respect. He stated that he was a member of the advisory group
for the HFEA's consultation on the issue of inter-species embryos.
He feared that the relevant provisions of the draft Bill would
render the HFEA's consultation pointless. He did not understand
the reasons for the Government's recent change of policy on this
issue.
Rachel Bell, Associate Director, BioCentre: Centre
for Bioethics and Public Policy, referred
to page 13 of the recent report of the Centre for Bioethics and
Public Policy. The definition set out in that report was produced
before publication of the draft Bill. The relevant part of the
report recommended that legislation should be clear as to whether
particular entities were to be regulated under human or animal
legislation.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, Public Policy Director,
Lawyers Christian Fellowship, noted that
whether the entity was classified as animal or human had wide
legal ramifications. Inter-species embryos were banned in many
countries including France, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy, Belgium,
and Canada. In some of these countries scientists could be imprisoned
for breaking these laws. Article 13 of the Council of Europe Convention
on Human Rights and Biomedicine ruled out the creation of animal
human hybrids for research purposes. Article 18 stated that where
the law allows research on embryos in vitro it is necessary
to ensure adequate protection for the embryo. The creation of
human embryos for research purposes is prohibited. There was a
risk that the UK would become ethically isolated and when legislating
in this area, Parliament should bear in mind the international
rule of law.
Dr Daniel Boucher, Director of Parliamentary
Affairs, CARE, stated that the potential
of adult stem cell technology should be recognised. Researchers
should move away from embryonic stem cells because their utility
had not been demonstrated. On the other hand, patients had been
successfully treated using adult stem cell technology. With only
limited resources available, those resources should be targeted
here. There was also an economic imperative which pointed in this
direction: there was economic benefit in successful treatments
using adult stem cells.
Rt Revd Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon,
said that the controversy surrounding hybrids was centred on the
ambiguity of their moral status. The Church of England would probably
view them as genetically disabled human beings. He thought that
the issue of germ lines was far more troubling, since it went
to the questions: what is human and what is animal? The Church
of England might allow for the use of cytoplasmic hybrids, but
this was subject to close regulation of research, especially in
the light of doubts as to its scientific usefulness. However,
the successful development of other, less controversial techniques
which achieve the same objectives would provide a reason to halt
this line of scientific investigation. Advances in the de-differentiation
of cells would be one such technology.
Mr David Burrowes MP
asked if it was possible to make a distinction between cytoplasmic
hybrid embryos and pure hybrid embryos.
Dr Donald Bruce, Science, Religion and Technology
Project, Church of Scotland, said that
the Church of Scotland viewed them in totality.
Dr Ian Gibson MP
asked about examples of hybrids made of purely animal material
(animal-animal hybrids). Would there be the same objection to
them?
Rt Revd Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon,
said that his concerns related to the special status of the human
embryo.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman,
asked if that meant the hamster test should be outlawed.
Dr Donald Bruce, Science, Religion and Technology
Project, Church of Scotland, replied that
this was a question that had never been asked of the Church of
Scotland, and so he did not have an official answer. Logic however,
would suggest that the Church of Scotland would be unhappy with
the hamster test.
Rt Revd Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon,
said the hamster test had crept under the radar and the Church
of England were unhappy with this. He argued that we should think
again about the hamster test.
Professor Neil Scolding, University of Bristol,
on behalf of the APPG Pro-life Group,
picked up on what the Bishop of Swindon had said. The developments
seen in the last two weeks, for instance research at King's College
London, had demonstrated a new ability to create embryonic stem
cells from fibroblasts without the use of an embryo. This drove
a coach and horses through these discussions and arguments. It
demonstrated there is no need to use embryos, and represented
a sea change when looking at embryonic stem cells. It removed
the justification for these more adventurous methods.
Sex Selection and embryo testing
Phil Willis MP, Chairman
asked for the views of participants on the Bill's proposals on
sex selection and embryo testing.
Julia Millington, Political Director, Pro-Life
Alliance, said she was opposed to testing
for abnormalities. Such testing could not be justified because
it identified defective embryos and led to their destruction.
There was no therapeutic benefit or emphasis on care, but an emphasis
instead on elimination. Ms Millington supported the retention
of the ban on social sex selection. There was a parallel with
abortion, where some hospitals refused to tell parents the sex
of their unborn child, because of the prevalence of abortion in
some cultures when it was revealed that the child was a girl.
There was concern at the destruction of embryos, and the resultant
demographic problems that might ensue. She referred to the demographic
problems apparent in India and China where there was a clear cultural
preference for male children.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman
asked if she was opposed to pre-implantation diagnosis, and whether
it was better to implant an embryo with defects.
Julia Millington, Political Director, Pro-Life
Alliance, answered yes.
Dr Ian Gibson MP
asked participants what they thought about the human genome project.
Josephine Quintavalle, Comment on Reproductive
Ethics, answered that we should learn
to cure not kill.
Dr Ian Gibson MP
asked participants what they thought about gene therapy.
Josephine Quintavalle, Comment on Reproductive
Ethics, said that developments in the
treatment of Parkinson's Disease were interesting. She said that
the Committee should hear more about the alternatives—at
the moment the approach seemed to be stem cells or nothing. Stem
cell research was interminably linked in the public eye with embryos.
The Guardian had recently run a story about cardiac treatment
using bone marrow stem cells, and showed a picture of an embryo
as an illustration. There was a need to look at other ways of
doing things.
Paul Tully, General Secretary, Society for the
Protection of Unborn Children, said that
with regard to pre-implantation diagnosis, the draft Bill was
headed in the direction of eugenics, as it was seeking to select
out disabilities. From the point of view of people with such disabilities,
this is seen as discrimination. Some people saw their disability
as part of their personality. It was possible to treat some conditions
after birth so that the disability element did not arise. Some
disabled people saw screening as discrimination, as if to say
"you are not welcome: embryos which are like you will be
discarded". It could be argued that scientists and embryologists
were protecting themselves, because they did not want the bad
publicity of the birth of children with disabilities, or for people
to say it was their fault.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman
said that Paul Tully had referred to the 'wrong' embryodid that
mean there was a 'right embryo'?
Paul Tully, General Secretary, Society for the
Protection of Unborn Children, said he
had used the phrase as a metaphor. He was not saying that able-bodied
people were 'superior' in any way.
Lord Winston presented
a scenario, which was based on a true circumstance, and was by
no means unique. He referred to the case of a woman who had come
to his clinic, who had a condition called Conradi Syndrome. This
meant she had difficulty walking and keeping her balance. She
didn't want her children to have the same lack of dignity that
she had. Lord Winston asked how Mr Tully would respond to
this scenario.
Paul Tully, General Secretary, Society for the
Protection of Unborn Children, said he
would refer her to previous advances in the treatment of medical
conditions using ethically acceptable research methods. Regarding
the example of Cystic Fibrosis—sufferers who might have
once expected to live for 30 years, may now live for 60 years.
It was desirable to give the patient hope.
Lord Winston said that
there were 6,000 single genetic defects, and Cystic Fibrosis was
an exception in that it could be treated. Many other conditions
presented a scenario of declining health. Mr Tully was asked
to respond.
Paul Tully, General Secretary, Society for the
Protection of Unborn Children, referred
to types of cancers that were untreatable in the past but were
now treatable. Hope should not be denied because these conditions
could be treated in the future.
Sarah Veale, Head, Equality and Employment Rights
Department, TUC said that the TUC felt
that the testing of embryos could be justified, but she found
it difficult that a secular organisation such as the TUC might
be accused of eugenics in making such an assertion, as if it would
support the most horrendous examples of eugenics. In a society
of checks and balances, this simply would not happen. The ban
on sex selection for non-medical purposes should be retained.
Ms Veale referred to the example of China as an illustration of
why.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman
asked if she was opposed to sex selection for family balancing
purposes.
Sarah Veale, Head, Equality and Employment Rights
Department, TUC said sex selection for
family balancing purposes should not be allowed. She said that
nature does a pretty good job on its own if you look at the statistics.
Dr Donald Bruce, Science, Religion and Technology
Project, Church of Scotland said that
the Church of Scotland did not have a formal view. In general
he would wish to follow the Council of Europe Convention. Sex
selection was acceptable in severe genetic cases, but not for
family balancing or social reasons. Sex selection should only
be permitted under exceptional or severe circumstances, but this
raised the problem of how you define such circumstances. The question
was at what point a line was crossed. But he argued that, once
you accept one non-medical reason, you could argue that any non-medical
reason could be justified, which could be dangerous.
Rt Revd Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon,
largely supported Donald Bruce. To undertake sex selection against
disease may not be a problem because was in itself a decision
to alleviate suffering. He did not support sex selection for social
reasons. The Church of England would support a careful case-by-case
analysis of tissue typing of embryos. However, the HFEA had said
it should only be undertaken as a last resort, and there was some
slippage in language used in the draft Bill. Sex selection should
be a last resort, and that the Bill as drafted would widen the
door.
Dr Donald Bruce, Science, Religion and Technology
Project, Church of Scotland said the Church
of Scotland would oppose tissue typing if the discarded embryos
were not diseased.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, Public Policy Director,
Lawyers Christian Fellowship, expressed
the wish that a disability group was represented. Even with society's
checks and balances there were dangers. Society did not live with
Down's Syndrome or Williams Syndrome in a way that it once did.
This raised serious questions about the way human dignity is perceived,
how we care for vulnerable people and how we perceive them.
Mr David Burrowes MP
asked participants what they made of the scenario that Lord Winston
had raised earlier.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, Public Policy Director,
Lawyers Christian Fellowship, said that
all funds and resources should be directed into cures.
Mr David Burrowes MP
asked how that could be done.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, Public Policy Director,
Lawyers Christian Fellowship, commented
that we are greater as a society when we learn to show compassion.
Ms Williams had just returned from Italy, where he saw her uncle
spoon-feeding his dying wife. This was a moving picture of dignity,
just like caring for a disabled child. There was a failure to
see the big important issues in society as affected by the draft
Bill. The repeal of the Human Reproductive Cloning Act 2001 would
allow cloning, through the process aiming to prevent the transmission
of serious mitochondrial disease. This could be the first of many
examples. The Committee should be attentive as to where such changes
might lead.
Parenting—the welfare of the child and the
need for a father
Phil Willis MP, Chairman
asked participants for their views on parenting, the welfare of
the child and the need for a father.
Dr Andrew Fergusson, Head of Communications,
Christian Medical Fellowship commented
that everything in social policy research showed that children
with fathers do better, although this was not to belittle single
parents. The draft Bill's proposal to remove the need for a father
flew in the face of recent proposals regarding the Child Support
Agency and its crackdown on absent fathers. Under the Judeo-Christian
tradition, God's ideal intention for life was for a child to have
a mother and a father.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman
asked whether he was opposed to same-sex couples having fertility
treatment.
Dr Andrew Fergusson, Head of Communications,
Christian Medical Fellowship, stated that
having a child was not a right but a gift from God. He noted that
although same-sex couples can access fertility treatment, a child
should not be presented as the ultimate consumer accessory. This
perception was growing in our culture, and this was not a good
thing. People's desire to be a parent was understandable, but
there was a risk of losing perspective as to where the child fits
in.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman
asked how the rights of a child and parent could be balanced.
Dr Andrew Fergusson,
Head of Communications, Christian Medical Fellowship, said that
the right of the child should be paramount because of a child's
vulnerability. There had been a cultural shift in the role of
children, and this was one of the presuppositions underlying the
Bill that had been referred to earlier.
Rt Revd Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon,
agreed. He commented that the Bill represented a massive shift.
It was clear that the Government was approaching it from the point
of view of not wanting to discriminate, but this was creating
confusion instead. Single people and same-sex couples could adopt,
and could do a good job. But adoption was different because it
directly resulted from defective parenting, whereas the Bill related
to a deliberate decision to bring a child into the world without
a father. The Bill came across as an attempt at social engineering,
and as a misguided attempt to correct discrimination. It was important
that single parents did not feel less valued as a result of what
he had to say, but it was a question of deliberately bringing
a child into the world without knowledge of who their father was.
Reference was made to recent television programmes on family roots,
which showed how important they were for people. Many adoptees
wanted to know who their biological parents were. The welfare
of the child should be the top priority. The Adoption and Children
Act stated that the welfare of the child should be paramount,
and this draft Bill alters that.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman
raised the question of donor-conceived people, asking if a record
of their biological parenting should be placed on the birth certificate.
Rt Revd Dr Lee Rayfield, Bishop of Swindon,
said that the Church of England had concerns around donor insemination,
and would support people finding out who their biological father
was. IVF had complicated how we related to people. In the example
of a cytoplasmic hybrid embryo, its mother could be viewed as
a sheep. As a result the world was fragmented.
Dr Daniel Boucher, Director of Parliamentary
Affairs, CARE, said that research demonstrated
the importance of fathers, and therefore, rather than removing
the provision, it should be made to work better. The provision
as it stands was not that you couldn't have IVF without a father,
but it flagged up their importance. The draft Bill proposal was
counter-productive, especially when viewed against a recent Government
consultation on promoting the parental responsibilities of absent
fathers. The draft Bill was giving off a confused message and
was wrong-headed. Reference was made to Clause 51 of the draft
Bill, which states that no man is to be treated as the father
of the child. This was extraordinary. Dr Boucher argued that,
in the draft Bill as a whole, there was no balance between the
rights of parents and the rights of children. Greater regard should
be given to the most vulnerable. Being a parent was not a right.
In terms of the provisions of the draft Bill on access to information,
not allowing a donor-conceived child to know until they are 18
means they would be effectively fatherless throughout childhood.
The proposal might be good from an equality point of view but
was not good for the child.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman
asked how he knew it damaged children.
Dr Daniel Boucher, Director of Parliamentary
Affairs, CARE, noted that a wealth of
evidence pointed to the value of a father. Much of the research
work undertaken on the children of same-sex parents looked at
younger children, whilst there was little evidence concerning
children in adolescence. In addition, the groups that have been
studied are small. He argued that the birth certificate should
have information in relation to biological parenting on it.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman,
asked if Dr Boucher could provide them with the evidence
he had referred to.
Dr Daniel Boucher, Director of Parliamentary
Affairs, CARE, noted that he had already
done so in written evidence.
Lord Mackay of Clashfern
commented that it had been suggested to the Committee that research
that points to the value of a father is actually due to other
factors, such as economic circumstances. He asked if Dr Boucher
could identify any research that shows that the value of a father
goes deeper than this.
Dr Daniel Boucher, Director of Parliamentary
Affairs, CARE, said he would send a bibliography
with relevant references to the Committee.
Lord Jenkin of Roding
asked whether there should be a legal obligation on parents to
tell their children about their biological heritage.
Dr Daniel Boucher, Director of Parliamentary
Affairs, CARE suggested that details of
biological parentage should be on the birth certificate. There
should be an obligation to tell the child before they were 18,
but it should be up to the parent to deem when this was most appropriate.
The reality would be that an obligation to place the information
on a birth certificate would create an incentive, but nonetheless
the parent is in the best position to judge—although it
would be a bombshell for the child whenever they are told. Dr Boucher
thought that this approach would allow flexibility.
Josephine Quintavalle, Comment on Reproductive
Ethics stated that we should be giving
as much consideration to this point as has been given to cytoplasmic
hybrid embryos. Months of discussion had been devoted to the hybrid
proposal, and by contrast, the Government was threatening to throw
out the need for a father, without due consideration.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman,
noting that he was getting nods from other participants, commented
that this was a subject that the Committee took seriously, and
had asked the question of oral witnesses over the past few weeks.
Public Opinion
Phil Willis MP, Chairman
asked how the participants felt that public opinion could be judged,
and how information relating to public opinion could be collected.
He explained that this was why the Committee had heard from the
journalist panel—to seek to understand how they influenced
public opinion.
Dr Ian Gibson MP,
asked if the public even had a point of view on these issues.
Dr Donald Bruce, Science, Religion and Technology
Project, Church of Scotland said that
yesterday he had been looking at public attitudes to nanotechnology.
He agreed that with any public consultation the question of "who
are the people who respond, and why do they come" has to
be asked. He acknowledged the difficulties of this, but said that
the alternative of not consulting at all was not acceptable. There
was no reason not to make reasonable attempts to consult because
of concerns over effectiveness. Different methods would be more
appropriate for different issues, depending on the public's level
of knowledge and engagement.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman
asked how the Committee should judge public opinion.
Dr Donald Bruce, Science, Religion and Technology
Project, Church of Scotland commented
that the Committee should wait and see what the HFEA's public
consultation on hybrid embryos revealed.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman
referred to the HFEA's consultation event the previous evening.
Given the event was held in London, his constituents were effectively
excluded from the process. He asked if this presented something
of an imbalance.
Dr Donald Bruce, Science, Religion and Technology
Project, Church of Scotland agreed that
it did. However, on some issues, the regulator had undertaken
meetings up and down the country, which often gave a clear indication
of public opinion. As a result it was possible to make an approximate
gauge of public opinion on such issues.
Andrea Minichiello Williams, Public Policy Director,
Lawyers Christian Fellowship, said that
the public did not understand the issues that were at stake in
the draft Bill, which were massive in their implications. Parliament
had a duty to the public to make such issues known when attempts
are being made to redefine family law and the meaning of humanity.
It must be done, because so few people understood the implications
of what the forum has discussed. The Committee should give proper
consideration to this.
Phil Willis MP, Chairman
thanked participants for attending, and closed the meeting.
154 Additional note by the witness-we have a general
concern that Utilitarian ethical views are dominating the thinking Back
155
Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and
Embryology, 1984, CM 9314, p.63-11.1 Back
| 
