Home
News
Archive Publications
Group
Information Search
Contact
us
News
Archive Publications
Group
Information Search
Contact
us| Home > Publications > Embryo Research > Sex Selection |
|
The submission of the Officers of the All-Party Parliamentary Pro-life
Group In response to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority
Consultation Document Sex
Selection: choice and responsibility in human reproduction January 2002 Chairman: Jim Dobbin MP Vice Chairmen: Ann Winterton MP, Rt Hon. Ann Widdecombe MP, Lord Stallard & Baroness Masham of
Ilton Hon Secretaries: Joe Benton MP
& Kerry Pollard MP Hon Treasurers: Professor the Lord
Alton of Liverpool & Rev Martin Smyth MP Clerk: Martin Foley c/o
Jim Dobbin MP Room 208 Portcullis House Westminster London SW1A 0AA Email:
foleym@parliament.uk Contents:
2.1
The 1993 Consultation 2.2
Market Research and Discussion Groups 2.3
Timing of the 2002/2003 Consultation 2.4
Purpose of the Consultation Exercise 2.5
Factual Error
3.1
Ethical Status of the Human Embryo
4.1
Pre-implantation and Post-implantation Sex Selection 4.2
Pre-conception Sex Selection 4.3
Health Risks
5.1
Legal Issues 5.2
Regulation and the HFEA’s role
6.1
Eugenics 6.2
Sex Selection for Social Reasons 6.3
‘Family Balancing’
1. Introduction and Overview Sex
selection, whether for medical reasons or social reasons, is unethical
and discriminatory and should not be countenanced in a society pledged
to principles of equality. The
practice represents a further step in the commodification of human
reproduction. In the same way as other reproductive technologies that
have preceded it - for example in vitro fertilisation,
pre-implantation genetic diagnosis, posthumous conception and cloning
– sex selection substitutes the concept of life as a gift with those
of production and manufacture. We
are committed to upholding the sanctity of human life from conception
until natural death. The issue of sex selection cannot be addressed in
isolation from the question of research on embryos in general. The
human embryo should be accorded the same degree of respect as any
other human being.[1]
It follows that destructive embryo research and direct abortion is
never acceptable. Regardless
of the method employed, sex selection is predicated upon destructive
embryo research and abortion. It should be banned. The
title of the consultation document is “Sex
Selection: choice and responsibility in human reproduction”. We
regret that the exercise of choice appears to trump the exercise of
responsibility. 2. The Public Consultation 2.1 The 1993 Consultation The
HFEA last held a public consultation on sex selection between January
and June 1993. Their annual report of 1993 referred to this
consultation and said that the responses were being analysed.[2]
No report as such of this consultation was ever made public. In
their 1994 annual report[3]
the HFEA referred to this earlier consultation: “Over 2000 copies of the consultation
document were distributed and approximately 200 responses were
received from centres, infertile people, women’s groups, religious
organisations and others…. The
Authority was persuaded by the balance of arguments set out in the
document against the use of sex selection for social reasons….. The Authority approved in principle the
use of sex selection techniques for medical reasons in cases where a
woman risks having a child with a life-threatening, sex linked
disease….. Ministers
and licensed centres were notified of the Authority’s decisions in
letters from the Chairman in July 1993.” In
effect, the HFEA had decided on the use of sex selection for medical
reasons before the consultation was undertaken and reached their
conclusions so soon after the final date for submissions as to make a
mockery of the consultation exercise. We
trust that this consultation will be managed with greater efficiency
and transparency. In particular, we trust that all the responses
submitted and the results of the consultation exercise will be placed
in the public domain, regardless of whether or not they accord with
the HFEA’s conclusions. 2.2 Market Research and Discussion
Groups With
this in mind we note with concern that the HFEA has conducted
“qualitative market research involving a number of discussion
groups”[4]
on attitudes towards sex selection. Details regarding membership of
these discussion groups, the questions they considered and the results
of their deliberations should have been included within the
consultation document. That they were not exacerbates our concerns
regarding the HFEA’s transparency and calls into question its
competency, a matter we will revisit when we consider legal and
regulatory issues in section 5. 2.3 Timing of the 2002 Consultation Sex
selection for social reasons was rejected by the HFEA in 1993,
presumably because the public response was so overwhelmingly negative.
During the past decade, the ethical arguments against sex selection
for social reasons have not changed. The question therefore arises as
to why this latest consultation exercise has been launched? What
has changed during the past decade is the increase in the number and
effectiveness of sex selection technologies. The HFEA’s decision to
publish Sex Selection: choice
and responsibility in human reproduction betrays its deeply held
bias when reaching decisions on embryo research and reproductive
technologies. Its principal concerns are whether procedures are safe
and reliable and whether they should be regulated. Comprehensive
ethical analysis is invariably sidelined. The
HFEA specialises in situational ethics that serve the temporal
interests and feelings of humanity. 2.4 Purpose of the Consultation Exercise The
consultation document sets forth a number of questions to guide
respondents in framing their submissions.[5]
The unique purpose of this consultation is later described as: “to seek the views of the public
concerning under what circumstances sex selection should be available
to those seeking treatment and whether any new legal provisions should
be put in place to regulate it.”[6] Nowhere
is the public asked whether or not it considers it is ever appropriate
to authorise sex selection for medical or social reasons. Rather, we
are essentially asked to choose between two alternatives. The first
would involve the approval and regulation of sex selection. The second
would leave sex selection unregulated with individuals free to
practice it so long as donor sperm is not used and/or embryos are not
created in vitro. This
is wholly unsatisfactory. The failure to seek responses on the pivotal
question of whether or not sex selection should be banned represents a
glaring omission which betrays the HFEA’s preference for regulated
sex selection provided it is safe and effective. 2.5 Factual Error The
consultation document also contains a factual error. At page 8 we are
advised that sex selection is not prohibited in India. In fact, India
approved the highly-restrictive ‘Prenatal Diagnostic Techniques
(Regulation and Prevention of Misuses) Act in 1994. 3. Reasons for Sex Selection We
are advised that the reasons people have for wanting to select the sex
of offspring fall into two categories: medical and non-medical.[7]
Regardless of the reasons, sex selection is predicated upon the
manipulation and destruction of nascent human life. We therefore
consider the practice as unacceptable. 3.1 Ethical Status of the Human Embryo Our
position on the ethical status of the human embryo is summarized in
Appendix A. As this has a fundamental bearing upon the justifications
for sex selection we would like to take this opportunity to expand a
little on this fundamental issue. Life begins at
conception, the moment of the fusion of the human gametes (male sperm
and female egg). This new human life, which comes into existence with
the formation of the one-cell zygote, has an inbuilt capacity to
initiate, sustain, control and direct its own development. The works
of recognized experts in the field of biological and embryological
science support this analysis.[8] The significance
of conception as the starting point of our human existence is
illustrated by an article in ‘Nature’ magazine last year.[9]
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……by tagging specific points on
mammalian eggs shortly after fertilization, researchers have shown
that they come to lie at predictable points in the embryo.” As human life
begins at conception we are implacably opposed to any research or
technology that involves the manipulation and destruction of the human
embryo, regardless of the scientific and medical benefits such
research may bring. This refusal to
be swayed by crude utilitarian or situational ethics stands in stark
contrast to the approach adopted by the HFEA and its precursor, the
Committee of Enquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Warnock
Committee Report).[10]
Figures recently disclosed in a parliamentary written answer
from the Department of Health[11]
indicate 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. 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 HFEA and its
members. Baroness Warnock
has been honest enough to recognise this. She has referred to the
“absurdities” of the current legislative and regulatory framework.[12] This consultation
is indicative of so much of the sanctimonious soul searching that
emanates from the HFEA, an organisation that has authorised the
destruction of human embryos on a truly horrendous scale. We are opposed to
sex selection for whatever reasons if it is contingent upon the
destruction of human embryos. The consultation document asserts that
preconception sex selection may be “attractive
to a wider group of people” as it “reduces
the likelihood of embryos of the unintended sex
being produced, which….might end up being destroyed.”[13] However, as we
will illustrate in the next section, the consultation document
envisages pre-conception sex selection being combined with IVF and
preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD)[14].
As this would necessarily involve the creation of supernumerary
embryos that would be destroyed and discarded it is unacceptable to
us. 4.
Methods of Sex Selection The consultation
document sets forth three different methods of sex selection:
4.1
Pre-implantation (PGD) and Post-implantation Sex Selection Clearly, PGD and
post-implantation sex selection will never be acceptable to us,
regardless of their reliability or safety for the woman involved. Both
are predicated on the destruction of unborn human beings. 4.2
Pre-conception Sex Selection Pre-conception
sex selection or sperm sorting is superficially attractive,
particularly for the avoidance of serious sex linked disorders. As the
statement from the Ethics Committee of the American Society of
Reproductive Medicine acknowledges[15],
it is “less invasive and
costly than other methods.” However, we would
take issue with the assertion from the aforementioned committee that
sperm sorting “causes no
destruction of prenatal life”.
We raise two specific concerns:
No
doubt a number of those parents who are dissatisfied with the selected
sex of their child will seek and obtain an abortion. We will not
endorse a technique which utilises abortion to ameliorate the
prospective parents’ dissatisfaction with the sex of their child.
The
combined method will certainly improve the accuracy and reliability of
sex selection. However, it is dependent upon the creation,
manipulation and destruction of human embryos. For the reasons set
forth in section 3, this is wholly unacceptable. As
far as the avoidance of serious sex-linked disorders in concerned,
sperm sorting remains unacceptable so long as the destruction of
prenatal life is consequent to it. We vigorously endorse in vivo
research and treatment and further post-birth treatment to eradicate
or minimise the adverse effects of such disorders provided such
research and treatment is cognisant of the inviolability of human
life. 4.3 Health Risks and dangers of
disability to offspring through IVF treatment. The
health risks of the various methods of sex selection must also be
taken into consideration. As far as the health risks to mother and
offspring from sperm sorting and PGD are concerned, the consultation
document is fairly sanguine.[18]
It is acknowledged that large scale studies will be required to assess
the safety of the flow cytometry technique, that biopsy carries a “small
risk of damage to the embryo”[19]
and that there are risks to the woman associated with IVF. Sadly,
no reference is made to the joint working party that has been
established by the HFEA and the Medical Research Council to
investigate a number of recent studies indicating that some forms of
IVF treatment, most notably intra-cytoplasmic sperm injection (ICSI),
may be unsafe and cause children born using these techniques to face
health problems in later life. The
consultation document also fails to refer to growing concerns from
scientists that any technique that meddles with early human
development – such as the removal of cells from an early embryo for
PGD – might potentially be harmful. “Its
possible you could be removing a cell with a predictable fate and
causing damage”.[20] A
wide variety of concerned individuals and organisations including
ourselves have been warning the HFEA for years that artificial
fertility techniques carry dangerous risks. It is only recently that
the HFEA has seen fit to investigate the matter further. Prior to any
form of sex selection being practised, the HFEA’s assertions
regarding health risks to mother and offspring should be independently
analysed and the results placed in the public domain. 5. Legal and Regulatory Issues 5.1 Legal Issues There
can be little doubt that sex selection for social reasons, acceding
completely to the preferences of the prospective parents, is contrary
to section 13(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.[21]
We therefore cannot envisage how sex selection for social reasons can
be authorised under the present legislative framework, never mind
regulated. Responsibility for any change in this state of affairs lies
with Parliament and not the unelected HFEA. Sex
selection for social reasons is also prohibited by Article 14 of the
Council of Europe Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and
Dignity of the Human Being with Regard to the Application of Biology
and Medicine. India has banned sex selection and various provinces in
China have taken steps to ban the practice. Although the UK is not a
signatory to the European Convention it is apparent that an
international consensus is being built against sex selection for
social reasons. In a recent debate in the House of Lords, a number of
peers made reference to a perception that the UK has come to be
regarded as the ‘El Dorado’ of embryonic stem cell research.[22]
If the UK were to endorse sex selection for social reasons, how
could we with any integrity oppose the barbaric sex discrimination
that goes on in other parts of the world? We would be moral and legal
accomplices to the very practices which we condemn. 5.2 Regulation, the HFEA’s role and
serious errors. The
consultation document assumes throughout that the HFEA would be an
adequate regulator of the practice of sex selection. We would
disagree. The
quotation on page 19 of the document is pertinent; “It should be monitored by……a
specialist organisation. I don’t want to be too hard on the medical
profession, but doctors….may be quite lackadaisical about
regulating.” Sadly,
events have proven that it is not only doctors who can be quite
lackadaisical about regulating. Last year we learnt of embryo
‘mix-ups’ at two clinics, one at Leeds General Infirmary and the
other at St George’s Hospital London and there is strong reasons to
believe that these are just the tip of the ice-berg. Dr Sammy Lee, a
respected embryologist wrote that he knew of at least six cases where
the wrong embryos were put into women. He maintains that it is “galling
that the HFEA has sought to brush aside any meaningful discussion of
why mistakes occur in IVF clinics, and how frequently.”[23] Professor
Austin Smith of the Centre for Genome Research, University of
Edinburgh, recently advised the House of Commons Science and
Technology Committee that the HFEA’s secretariat is “inefficient
and lacking in specialist knowledge……Research regulation seems to
be at the margin of their activities.”[24]
Professor Smith advises that the HFEA has asked him to peer review
his own research application. Furthermore, it was recently disclosed
that in 1997 the HFEA granted Professor Smith a licence to derive and
characterise stem cell lines from human embryos, a full four years
before this was authorised by Parliament in the Human Fertilisation
and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations. Evidence
has also emerged that the HFEA has been allowing ‘egg-trading’ to
be practised in at least one London fertility clinic[25]
in contravention of section 12(e) of the Human Fertilisation and
Embryology Act 1990. Indeed
increasingly the HFEA exceeds its authority, taking over the
democratic role of Parliament. Recently the High Court ruled that the
HFEA exceeded the scope of its authority when it authorised PGD of
human embryos in order to create tissue matches for sick siblings.[26] In
July 2002 the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee was
highly critical of the HFEA; “The Lords Stem Cell Research
Committee reported that the HFEA 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”.[27]
(emphasis added) The
HFEA is an organisation in disarray and in its present form is not a
‘specialist organisation’ that can be entrusted with the
regulation of the practice of sex selection. It
is true that “arguing for
regulation of sperm sorting is…not the same as arguing for it to be
allowed to take place.”[28]
Yet the HFEA specialises in utilitarian, situational ethics that
pander to the false dogma of reproductive choice and the popular vote.
As the recent judicial review on tissue typing illustrates, it is a
permissive and unelected quango that cannot be trusted as an effective
regulator. 6. Ethical/Social Issues We
maintain that the supreme ethical issue concerns the status of the
human embryo. To reiterate: the human embryo is an immature human
being, worthy of the same degree of respect as you or any of us. Sex
selection, for whatever reason(s) is unethical as it is predicated
upon the destruction of human embryos. 6.1 Eugenics Sex
selection represents a form of eugenics. ‘Defective’ or unsuitable
embryos are necessarily identified for destruction following arbitrary
judgements by prospective parents and scientists. The consultation
document refers to the possibility of applying the technology to the “avoidance of serious disease”[29].
This is merely a euphemism for the eugenic practice of destroying the
carrier of sex related genetic disease. Rather than eradicate the
carrier, as we state in section 4, we vigorously endorse in vivo
research and treatment and further post-birth treatment to eradicate
or minimise the adverse effects of such disease. As
regulation of section 1(1)(d) of the Abortion Act has proven (abortion
on grounds of disability), the concept of ‘serious’ can prove
enormously difficult to define[30]. Slippery slopes are
often discounted but in view of the permissive approach to date of the
HFEA, we have little doubt that unless sex selection is banned the
definition of ‘serious’ sex-linked genetic will quickly expand to
encompass many minor physical or mental abnormalities. 6.2 Sex Selection for Social Reasons The
arguments proposed in the consultation document against sex selection
for social reasons[31] are ones that we would
endorse. Rather than revisit them all in detail, we would like to
highlight a number of important points. Sex Discrimination If
sex selection for social reasons were to be authorised then, as the
consultation document intimates[32],
we would be implicitly condoning sex discrimination. When making
decisions of this magnitude it is vital to consider the impact this
would have upon those already living, for example siblings of the
selected child. It may be difficult to feel self esteem when your
parents consciously choose not to have another child of your sex. As
soon as you start choosing at all on grounds of sex, you enter a realm
of great moral difficulty where it is difficult to draw ethical
boundaries. Were
Government to allow prospective parents to consciously choose the sex
of their child for any reason or no reason at all, then it becomes
harder to justify prohibiting employers from discriminating in the
workplace or teachers from discriminating in schools. We
have already referred to the danger of the UK becoming the sex
selection ‘El Dorado’ of the international community. The approval
of sex selection practices for reprehensible and frivolous reasons in
the UK would make it impossible to condemn the barbaric sex
discrimination that persists in China, India and other countries
around the world. It would exacerbate the serious demographic
imbalances set out on page 26 of the consultation document. What is
needed in India and China "is an elimination of inequality, not
of baby girls".[33]
We should not underestimate the impact, positive or negative,
that the decision whether or not to authorise sex selection for social
reasons in the UK would have worldwide. Slippery Slope The
slippery slope argument outlined in the consultation document[34]
is extremely powerful. We maintain that since the Human Fertilisation
and Embryology Act 1990 British society has divested the human embryo
of any moral value. This can be seen by the fact that when her report
was published Baroness Warnock and her Committee insisted that we must
always accord the human embryo some dignity, albeit that in certain
cases it could be used for experiments. Ten years later the Baroness
has admitted that this is non-sensical. “You
cannot respectfully pour something down the sink – which is the fate
of the embryo after it has been used for research.”[35]
A decision to authorise sex selection for social reasons, via,
as would be likely, a combination of sperm sorting and PGD, would
surely confirm her admission. In these circumstances it would be hypocritical for
Government and regulators to maintain that the human embryo has any
‘special status’. However once we
give ourselves the authority to play God, surely we would have a duty
to achieve the best possible results. If suitable technology develops
the demand will arise for selection on grounds of intelligence, beauty
and certain behavioural and character traits. One can envisage the
arguments to justify such procedures on the grounds of ‘family
imbalance’. It would become untenable to draw the line at mere
negative eugenics when positive eugenics offers such an array of
possibilities.[36] 6.3 ‘Family Balancing’ The
concept of ‘family balancing’ does not acknowledge the possible
adverse effects of sex selection on society as a whole. Families are
not isolated units but constitute an integral part of a cohesive
society. The
consultation document recognizes that the prospect of ‘positive
eugenics’ may be as objectionable to those who endorse a permissive
approach as it is to those of us who argue that these new reproductive
technologies are unethical and should be illegal. [37]
It then seems to suggest that so-called ‘family balancing’, as it
is not tainted with positive eugenics, might be the overriding factor
conferring acceptability on the reasons prospective parents might have
for sex selection. ‘Family
balancing’ is the latest in a long line of buzzwords that the HFEA
and it allies have dreamt up to persuade the general public of the
benign nature of proposed research and/or technologies. During the
passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 we had the
metaphysically dubious term ‘pre-embryo’. During the passage of
the Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations
2001, when it was felt that the term ‘cloning’ might scare too
many people by bringing to mind Huxley’s ‘Brave New World’ we
were told that the use of cloned human embryos for destructive
research was actually ‘therapeutic’ cloning. ‘Family
balancing’ should be seen in this light. A family that lacks an
equal number or reasonable distribution of boys and girls can hardly
be said to be ‘imbalanced’. The consultation document recognizes
this argument but states that the permissive lobby is not arguing that
such families are imbalanced but that “there
is something potentially better about families where children are of
both sexes – a claim which is much less contentious.”[38] No
empirical evidence or studies are cited in support of this specious
claim. In the absence of such evidence the consultation document then
proceeds to state that “if
this greater good can be realized by sex selection in a way which
does no harm to others (emphasis added),
should the state seek to prevent it? In this regard, we would
refer you back to the statement at the opening of section 6.3. Furthermore,
we maintain that sex selection imposes a fatal harm on the human
embryo. The argument propounded in paragraph 98 betrays the HFEA’s
longstanding ambivalence towards the human embryo. 7.
Conclusion The
human embryo is a human being entitled to the same degree of respect
as any other human being. Destructive embryo research is unethical,
regardless of the potential benefits such research may bring. Research
on human embryos has not lived up to the great promises made in 1990
and it is ethical research which has resulted in major developments
in, for example, the treatment of genetic diseases. All
three methods of sex selection outlined in the HFEA consultation
document are predicated on destructive embryo research and should be
illegal. Preconception sex selection is beset with technical
difficulties and a high error rate. The likely combination of sperm
sorting with PGD to counter these problems renders preconception sex
selection unacceptable to us. Sex
selection is a further step in the commodification of human life. We
support ethical research and treatment to eradicate serious sex linked
disorders. However, the identification and destruction of
‘defective’ embryos represents an unacceptable form of negative
eugenics. Emphasis should be placed on eradicating the disease, not
the carrier. Sex
selection for social reasons introduces positive eugenics. The
consultation document fails to acknowledge that to authorize such a
technique would remove any last vestiges of “respect” for the
human embryo and make it philosophically untenable to oppose other
forms of positive eugenics. We
regret that the UK has already come to be regarded as the cloning and
embryonic stem cell ‘El Dorado’. To endorse a policy of sex
selection for social reasons would further isolate the UK from
mainstream international opinion on key bioethics issues. It would
undermine national and international action to eradicate the brutal
practice of sex discrimination in countries like India and China. We
do not wish to see the already dire demographic imbalance in such
countries worsened by policy decisions made in the UK. The
HFEA is not a competent regulator of sex selection and the other
reproductive technologies. It is an arrogant, permissive, unelected
quango which panders to a false dogma of reproductive choice. The
recent outcome of the judicial review on the HFEA’s decision to
allow tissue typing in conjunction with PGD demonstrates that the HFEA
has exceeded its parliamentary remit. As the House of Commons Science
and Technology Committee acknowledged last year[39]
there is an urgent need for Parliament to consider these major ethical
issues such as sex selection. “It
is vital that the public are taken along with decisions of such
ethical importance.”[40]
Parliament, not an unelected quango, is the proper forum to achieve
this.[41] We
hold that sex selection, whether for medical or social reasons, is
unethical and should be illegal. We look forward to having the
opportunity to debate this matter in Parliament in the near future. 8.
Appendix A.
The status of the human embryo
We
consider that the treatment of the human embryo should be governed by
the established principles of medical ethics as set out in the Declarations
of Geneva and Helsinki. These may be applied, with some modifications
for the special situation of the embryo or fetus, but with no changes
of fundamental principle. The most relevant sections are: The
Geneva Convention Code of Medical Ethics (WMA 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 knowledge
contrary to the laws of 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." This is the approach we take with regard to the treatment of human embryos and fetuses, and we would recommend it to the HFEA. [1] Our position of the status of the human embryo is summarized in Appendix A. [2] to be confirmed [3] HFEA 3rd Annual Report (July 1994) pp. 10-11 [4] Sex
Selection: choice and responsibility in human reproduction p.5 (HFEA:
2002) [5] Ibid.
p.4 [6] Ibid. p. 6 [7] Ibid. pp. 7-8 [8] “The
development of a human being begins with fertilisation, a process
by which two highly specialised cells, the spermatozoon from the
male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new
organism, the zygote.” Langman,
Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd Edition. Baltimore:
Williams and Wilkins 1975, p.3. “Embryo: the
developing organism from the time of fertilization until
significant differentiation has occurred, when the organism
becomes known as a fetus.” Cloning Human Beings. Report and Recommendations of the National
Bioethics Advisory Commission (USA), Rockville, MD: GPO, 1997,
Appendix-2. “Development
of the embryo begins at Stage 1 when a sperm fertilizes an oocyte
and together they form a zygote.” England,
Marjorie A. Life Before Birth. 2nd ed. England: Mosby-Wolfe,
1996, p. 31. [9] ‘Nature’ Vol. 418 4th July 2002 pp. 14-15 [10]
Cmnd 9314 (1984). [11] Hansard; 07.11.02 Col. WA145. [12] Hansard; 05.12.02 Col.
1327 – “You cannot
respectfully pour something down the sink – which is the fate of
the embryo after it has been used for research.” [13] Sex Selection: choice and responsibility in human reproduction op. cit; pp. 10-11. [14] Ibid. p. 16. [15] Ibid. p.11 [16] Ibid. p. 27 [17] Ibid. p. 16 [18] Ibid. pp. 11-15. [19] Ibid. p. 15 [20] a statement Alan Handyside who studies embryo abnormalities at the University of Leeds – taken from ‘Your destiny from day one’ Nature Vol. 418 4th July 2002 p.14 [21] “A
woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account
has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a
result of the treatment.” [22] House of Lords Hansard; 5th December 2002 Col. 1311ff – for example see Lord Chan at Col. 1339. [23] ‘The Baby Factories’ The Sunday Telegraph 10th November 2002. [24] House of Commons Science and Technology Committee ‘Developments in Human Genetics and Embryology’ Fourth Report of Session 2001-02; Appendix 4 Ev 14. HC 791 HMSO [25] ‘Top IVF doctor is accused of exploiting childless women with egg trading’ London Evening Standard 2nd December 2002. [26] Core
judgement [27] House of Commons Science
and Technology Committee ‘Developments
in Human Genetics and Embryology’ Fourth Report of Session
2001-02; p. 7. HC 791 HMSO [28] Sex
Selection: choice and responsibility in human reproduction op.
cit; p19. [29] Sex
Selection: choice and responsibility in human reproduction op.
cit; p. 21. [30] Since 1995 there have been 25 abortions recorded for harelip. One was performed after 24 weeks. [31] Sex
Selection: choice and responsibility in human reproduction op.
cit; pp. 24-29. [32] Ibid. p. 25 [33]
Marteau, J.M., 'Sex Selection', B.M.J. 306 (1993) 1704. [34] Sex
Selection: choice and responsibility in human reproduction op.
cit; pp. 28-29. [35] Hansard; 05.12.02 Col.
1327. [36]
a point made by Ruth Chadwick in Chadwick, R., 'Genetic
Improvement' in Braine, D., & Lesser, H.,(eds.), Ethics,
Technology and Medicine (Aldershot: Avebury, 1988) pp. 95-113. [37] Sex
Selection: choice and responsibility in human reproduction op.
cit; pp. 28-29. [38] Ibid. p. 29 [39] House of Commons Science
and Technology Committee ‘Developments
in Human Genetics and Embryology’ Fourth Report of Session
2001-02; pp. 11-13. HC 791 HMSO [40] Ibid. p. 13 [41] As the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee observed; “Parliament does not need protecting and democracy is not served by unelected quangos taking decisions on behalf of Parliament.” Ibid. |
|