Parliamentary Reports
| Human Fertilisation |
 |
 |
 |
| Saturday, 18 October 2008 09:43 |
|
ETHICAL DILEMMAS The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which regulates the use of human embryos for research purposes, generated one of my biggest postbags. The Bill returns to the Commons in the Autumn from the House of Lords. For many people research on human embryos is simply unacceptable and no amount of discussion will persuade them otherwise. I respect their deeply held views but do not share them. When the Bill was first published there was much talk of Frankenstein creatures, half human and half animal, being created in the laboratory. My first reaction was to share this general feeling of revulsion and, indeed, I wrote to many constituents to say I would never support such outlandish legislation. In truth, the Bill’s provisions hold the key, in my view, to research breakthroughs which could help us understand and treat hugely disabling and cruel conditions such as Motor Neurone Disease and Parkinson’s Disease. I have a long interest in neurological conditions and, some years ago, set up the Parliamentary All Party Group on Multiple Sclerosis (and I am honoured to be the President of the local MS branch.) Research in human embryos has been taking place since the 1970s and without it we would not have seen the major advances in infertility treatment through in vitro fertilisation. The present Bill updates the regulatory regime to take account of new developments and new possibilities. There are important safeguards. The law requires the laboratory to have a licence from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority and to be subject to inspections. And any embryos used or created in research must be destroyed 14 days after fertilisation. It is also a criminal offence to transfer these to a woman. The Bill has been strongly supported by the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Nursing and by the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. Attempts were also made to change the law on abortion. I agree with the BMA that the 24 week time limit should stay. |
Report
