Sunday 18 May 2008

Human Fertilisation and Embryology

There's been a fair amount said about this week's big parliamentary debate already, but not enough I suspect. Gordon Brown has offered his personal opinion in The Observer today, in an effort to drum up support from the uncertain for the uncertain.

I'm no pro-lifer, don't think myself unduly conservative on such matters, and have a certain amount of apprehension about the amendment to shorten the period in which women can obtain an abortion (apprehensive because I fear that it might be supported). But I object most strongly to the proposal that IVF should no longer require clinics to consider the child's need for a father. It's not that they're saying that a child has no need for a father (they'd have difficulty providing evidence for that proposition particularly as they regularly blame 'absent fathers' for teenage delinquency). It's this curious belief that in some way they're denying human rights to gays and lesbians. Whatever happened to the notion that it's the child's need that should be put first?

However my biggest anxiety is over the main focus of the bill, the proposal that scientists should be allowed to create animal-human hybrid embryos. Whether MPs are ever likely to have sufficient grasp of the scientific arguments is uncertain; For myself, I'm deeply suspicious of them. The scientists say (in effect) that if we permit this technique they'll solve all known illnesses before Christmas comes around. And that if the MPs reject the proposal they are condemning the ill to suffering and that would be immoral. It's an absurd argument, driven by scientists' desire to experiment regardless of consequence. The success of existing stem cell treatments is wildly overstated, and published research is about as one-sided as the stuff emanating from drug companies. But the politicians seem to have bought into this misplaced conviction.

Bad science always promises the moon; just look at the Nuclear industry. Governments are very reluctant to appear sceptical, they remain ever hopeful that those promises will actually deliver, and they will benefit electorally.

It worries me how the debate is being conducted not least with its undue haste, and it's all too reminiscent of the Iraq farrago from four years ago. Scientific breakthroughs are more likely to be made than Saddam Hussein's WMD were to be found, certainly, but only marginally. Gordon's zeal in pushing this through is not unlike Tony's was, and his assessment of the outcome is likely to be about as deficient.

There's worse though. "Britain is at the forefront of this research and responsible for much of the worldwide progress" Gordon writes. So that's what it comes down to. Money.

4 comments:

Political Umpire said...

"and have a certain amount of apprehension about the amendment to shorten the period in which women can obtain a pregnancy "

You mean abortion, presumably.

"But I object most strongly to the proposal that IVF should no longer require clinics to consider the child's need for a father. It's not that they're saying that a child has no need for a father (they'd have difficulty providing evidence for that proposition particularly as they regularly blame 'absent fathers' for teenage delinquency). It's this curious belief that in some way they're denying human rights to gays and lesbians. Whatever happened to the notion that it's the child's need that should be put first?"

I blogged about this a while ago. It is very incongruous given the zeal with which absent fathers are (rightly) otherwise pursued etc. It comes down to formal logic, not more. If it is accepted that gays/lesbians can be parents of equal worth, then a child cannot have a 'right' to a father over a gay equivalent. Hence we have 'the need for supportive parenting' replacing 'the need for a father'.

I am not entirely comfortable with that logic, though I vehemently denounce homophobia, perhaps I'm just biased as a father myself (who isn't biased in some way in this debate ...?)

As to the potential medical gains of the hybrid experiments etc, I would have to read more of the science to be able to give an informed opinion.

Stephen said...

I get worse as I get older! I did of course mean abortion and the post has been suitably amended.

"Should people be able to approach IVF clinics without fear of discrimination on the grounds of their sexual orientation? My answer to all those questions is an unequivocal yes." (Gordon Brown)

People should not be discriminated against on the grounds of their sexual orientation at IVF clinics or anywhere else. But this is not a question of discrimination, it is a case of recognising the needs of a child. I would have equal anxiety about IVF being offered to unpartnered heterosexual women. To the extent that our own lives shape our views, my personal position is that children should wherever possible be brought up by the two people whose genes they have inherited - they are the only people who have the right to call themselves the child's parents. I think that adoption should be more a measure of last resort than it is at present and that A.I.D. is unequivocally wrong.

Children are not a commodity to be owned or traded and those who for selfish reasons set out to make them so should not be encouraged, least of all by the law.

Political Umpire said...

Well it has come to pass, and now there is no need for a father (save for the inconvenient fact of biology which even this gvt hasn't legislated a way around ...). I've had another go at blogging on the point and have stolen a few of your arguments. Not sure I've got the answer yet.

Stephen said...

I've followed you over to your blog PU to continue this discussion. I will post more here to in due course, although I need to take a little time to reflect first.