The Prime Minister is embattled, the Chancellor has torn up the Budget and the
Labour Party is set to lose a seat it has held since the days of Michael
Foot.
Yet early next week MPs will briefly forget about 10p tax, public borrowing
rules and even the Crewe & Nantwich by-election as party hostilities are
suspended to consider different controversies.
The House of Commons will have its first chance in years to vote on matters of
reproductive medicine, stem cell research and abortion as the Human
Fertilisation and Embryology Bill enters its committee stage on Monday and
Tuesday.
The issues at stake lie well outside normal political comfort zones,
encompassing hybrid embyros, “saviour siblings”, fertility treatment for
lesbians and the viability of the foetus.
Coalitions cut across party lines. On abortion, for example, the campaign for
lower time limits is led by religious MPs such as Nadine Dorries, a
Conservative, and Claire Curtis-Thomas, of Labour. Support for the status
quo is being marshalled by Evan Harris, a Liberal Democrat, Jacqui Lait, a
Tory, and Alan Milburn, the former Labour Cabinet minister. The Times
here presents a guide to the four three-hour debates, each of which will end
in a free vote.
Human-animal embryos
Monday's first debate will cover the issue that has received most attention:
the creation of “human admixed embryos” containing human and animal
material.
These have been condemned by Cardinal Keith O'Brien, head of the Roman
Catholic Church in Scotland, as “experiments of Frankenstein proportion”.
Yet to most scientists and patient groups they have valuable potential for
medical research.
The main type of admixed embryos are “cytoplasmic hybrids” or “cybrids”,
generated by moving a human cell nucleus into an empty animal egg. The
result is genetically 99.9 per cent human and could carry the DNA of a
patient with a degenerative disease.
The idea is to make stem cell models of conditions such as Alzheimer's and
Parkinson's to study their progress and to test new treatments. Admixed
embryos would be cultured for a maximum of 14 days.
This issue is so new that only a few countries have passed legislation.
Australia has banned it, Canada allows some kinds of admixed embryos but not
others, and China is an enthusiastic supporter.
Two amendments have been tabled. The first, from Edward Leigh, a Conservative,
would ban all these experiments, and is unlikely to be passed. Conservative
and Liberal Democrat MPs who favour the research are thought to outnumber
Labour MPs who do not, and the public is also supportive. A Times/Populus
poll last month found that 50 per cent approve cybrids, against 30 per cent
who are opposed.
A second amendment, from Andrew Lansley, the Tory health spokesman, would
outlaw only true hybrids, made by fertilising a human egg with animal sperm,
or vice-versa. This stands more chance of success, not least as scientists
have not yet planned any experiments of this sort. Researchers say that a
ban would be unwise because science can move quickly. True hybrid
experiments would still have to be approved as “necessary or desirable” by
the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA).
Amendment prospects: **outright ban, ***ban on true hybrids
Saviour siblings
The Monday evening debate will cover the issue that, more than any other,
prompted the Government to update the embryology law: the creation of
“saviour siblings”.
It has been possible since 1990 to test IVF embryos for genetic diseases such
as cystic fibrosis. In 2001 the technique was adapted to screen for tissue
type, to let parents of sick children to conceive a sibling suitable to
provide a life-saving transplant, using cells from the umbilical cord or
bone marrow.
This threw the HFEA into confusion as it was not specifically covered by
legislation. The Hashmi family was allowed to try to conceive a saviour
sibling for their son, Zain, who has the blood disorder beta-thalassaemia,
though the treatment failed. The Whitaker family, however, was refused
permission to use the technology in a slightly different way and went to the
US for therapy. The successful procedure cured their son Charlie, now 9, of
Diamond-Blackfan anaemia. The HFEA reversed its position, leading Ian
Gibson, then chairman of the Commons science and technology committee, to
accuse it of “making policy by the seat of its pants”.
Critics of allowing saviour siblings say it commodifies children. Some also
object to the destruction of embryos not suitable as donors. An amendment
from David Burrowes, a Tory, to ban it is expected to fail.
Mr Lansley has proposed a milder amendment that would make it clear that only
“regenerative tissue”, such as cord blood or bone marrow, could be taken
from saviour siblings. This could pass, though the Bill already bans the
removal of whole organs.
Amendment prospects: **
Need for a father
Before providing fertility treatment, at the moment clinics must consider a
child's “need for a father”. The Government's proposal to replace this with
“need for supportive parenting”, to avoid discrimination against single and
lesbian women, will be debated on Tuesday afternoon.
Opponents of the change, such as the former Tory leader Iain Duncan Smith,
have argued that research shows the absence of a father is detrimental to
children. They point out that few lesbians are denied fertility treatment
under current law.
Both statements are correct - in part. There is good evidence that children
without fathers do worse, but it comes from studies of family breakdown.
Research led by the psychologists Clare Murray and Susan Golombok shows that
children of lesbian and single women who conceive by donor insemination are
as well adjusted as those from traditional families.
Equality laws say that these women are entitled to treatment. The HFEA code of
practice tells clinics to consider “the prospective mother's ability to meet
the child's needs” in such cases.
Lawyers and gay rights groups say that fertility clinics still discriminate
against lesbians. A decision to reinsert the father clause would worsen this
because Parliament would have made its opinion clear.
Two amendments are on the table. Mr Duncan Smith's would enshrine in law the
“need for a father and a mother”. Mr Lansley's proposes a need for a father
or male role model”. One of these is likely to be adopted.
The Conservatives are encouraging their MPs to back the amendments, which also
have some Labour support. It is possible that any amendment would be struck
down by a legal challenge under the Human Rights Act.
Amendment prospects: *****
Abortion
The most controversial debate will be the last. Although the Bill does not
mention abortion, the Government has allowed time for votes on the issue on
Tuesday evening and nine amendments to current law have been tabled.
Mrs Dorries has proposed cutting the current 24-week limit to 20 weeks and
other MPs have tabled alternatives of 12, 14, 16, 18 and 22 weeks. Only some
are likely to be put to a vote. Other proposals include a compulsory
cooling-off period before an abortion could be carried out.
These amendments are supported by MPs who oppose abortion in principle and by
others who cite evidence that foetuses are sometimes viable at 23 or even 22
weeks.
MPs who want to restrict abortion rights claim that most European countries
have lower limits, often at 12 weeks, as in Germany, Italy and Spain. These
generally apply to women's absolute right to abortion: later abortions are
still permitted with medical permission, as in Britain.
MPs who back the status quo, such as Dr Harris and Ms Lait, point to two
recent studies which show that survival among babies born at 22 and 23 weeks
has not improved for a decade.
Late abortions are rare: 89 per cent are performed before 13 weeks, fewer than
2 per cent are after 20 weeks, and 0.7 per cent are after 22 weeks. They
tend to feature difficult cases. This is the hardest of all the votes to
predict, though it is unlikely that a reduction to less than 20 weeks will
be carried.
GLOSSARY
Human admixed embryo
Embryo containing both human and animal material
Cytoplasmic hybrid embryo, or “cybrid”
Cloned embryo made by placing human nucleus into an empty animal egg
True hybrid embryo
Made by fertilising human egg with animal sperm, or vice-versa
Chimera
Admixed embryo, containing a mixture of human and animal cells
Transgenic human embryo
A genetically modified human embryo, containing animal DNA
Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)
Embryo-screening technique
Saviour sibling
Child born after PGD test to establish suitability as tissue donor
Need for a father
Clause that requires IVF clinics to consider a child's need for a father
Abortion time limit
This is 24 weeks. Amendments have been tabled to reduce it
As I am sure the writer of this article knows very well, there is no possibility of any of the clauses of this Bill eventually being 'struck down' by the courts under the HRA. Not that it matters as both amendments were just rejected: a victory for children who may now benefit from a loving family.
Christopher, Manchester,
this is NOT a fair summary. It is essential to point out that the option of adult stem cells and umbilical cord blood stem cells make embryo research completely unnecessary. Adult stem cells are already being used in treatment. see www.stemcellresearch.org
Fiona, London, UK
This is a fair summary. However, the Tory Health spokesman Andrew Lansley now wants to make abortions even easier by scrapping the present requirement of the authorisation of two doctors in favour of just "health professionals". This is dynamite and could lose the Tories the Crewe by-election.
George, Bolton, England