Printed from: https://archive.cmf.org.uk/advocacy/submissions/?id=44
Published: 11th June 2007
The Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF) is an interdenominational organisation, founded in 1949, with more than 4,500 British doctors as members. All are Christians who desire their professional and personal lives to be governed by the Christian faith as revealed in the Bible. Members practise in all branches of the profession, and through the International Christian Medical and Dental Association are linked with like-minded colleagues in over 100 other countries.
One of CMF's aims is 'to promote Christian values, especially in bioethics and healthcare, among doctors and medical students, in the church and in society'. As Christian doctors we support the use of science and technology to prevent, treat and relieve suffering, including the suffering of infertility. Science, technology and healthcare should always be guided by sound ethical principles based on a profound respect for all human life from the time of conception until natural death. Consideration of infertility treatments should in addition be based on respect for marriage as the ideal context for procreation and the protection and raising of children.
CMF regularly makes submissions on ethical and professional matters to Government committees and other official bodies. All our submissions are available on our website at www.cmf.org.uk/ethics/submissions/. Of particular relevance to the current inquiry are the following:
As can be seen, CMF has commented extensively on recent developments in biotechnology and human reproduction. We welcome the opportunity to present this written evidence, regret the extremely short deadline, and are willing to provide experts to give oral evidence. We answer all questions, but concentrate on those foundational areas which we believe threaten the dignity of human life, human relationships, marriage, and the family.
'Necessary'? – we oppose the creation of any chimera, hybrid, or 'cybrid' embryos. These entities are mainly being sought because of a shortage of human ova from which to derive cloned embryos as a source of human embryonic stem cells. There is no current clinical benefit deriving from human embryonic stem cells, nor is any foreseeable in a realistic timeframe. Even if there were, the destructive research applied to human beings who have not consented would mean that 'the ends do not justify the means'. Further, the abolition of the need for a father is unnecessary. Children need fathers, to share parental responsibility within the family.
'Sufficient'? – we regret being forced to accept many parts of the 1990 legislation and would not seek any further liberalisation of the law in this area.
'Workable'? – these proposals highlighted above are unnecessary and unethical. The utilitarian concept of 'workable' is therefore of secondary consideration.
'Better means'? – we oppose the proposed merger of two such large and disparate bodies, see Para 8/Q4(a). Human beings are different from mere human tissue, and require separate principles and practice for regulation.
(i) Parliamentary control via primary legislation and secondary legislation (regulation making powers);
Parliament is elected by the people and is accountable to them. If there were genuine public consultation about the ethics and consequences of such matters as trans-species entities and deliberately fatherless families, Parliament would show very much more concern than has been demonstrated recently. Parliament must retain the main responsibility and we would wish as little as possible devolved to secondary legislation.
(ii) Regulation by the regulatory body (or bodies);
See (i)
(iii) Appropriate flexibility and freedom for clinicians and researchers;
We are concerned by the sole use here of the language of 'flexibility and freedom for clinicians and researchers'. Science must operate within ethical boundaries, agreed by Parliament after genuine consultation with all groups within society.
(iv) Appropriate opportunities for individuals to access treatment.
Individuals should only be able to access treatments which are ethical and appropriate for them, and are agreed by Parliament and properly regulated.
We believe there is widespread public ignorance about many aspects of research and treatment that are currently allowed, and even greater ignorance about the radical and extreme proposals in this draft bill. Claims currently made about public confidence are highly contestable and lack an evidence base. Whilst we are forced to accept the provisions of the 1990 legislation, we nevertheless believe that before any further developments detailed and lengthy consultation involving all groups in society should be undertaken. Even if this took several years, there is no hurry to legislate for this unnecessary research; it is competition and commerce that are primarily motivating the biotechnology industry.
Q4. (a) What are your views on the proposed transfer of the functions of the HFEA and HTA to a single new regulatory authority, RATE?
We oppose the creation of a single body and agree with the British Medical Association that the remit of this proposed new single authority is too wide. The HFEA does not have a good track record in the policing aspects of its regulatory role, and given the current crisis in the medical profession about the performance of medical regulatory bodies, we have no confidence that a single body with such wide responsibilities would be sufficiently competent.
Further, we believe it is a fundamental mistake of principle to conflate 'human tissue' – about which ethical concerns are relatively limited and widely agreed –with human embryos, each of whom is a unique being, an embryonic human, worthy of far greater degrees of respect than currently enjoyed, and worthy, we believe, of real protection in law.
(b) What are your views on the provisions in Schedule 1 about RATE's constitution and administration?
See (a). RATE should not be created.
Q5. Would the proposed funding of the regulatory body or bodies allow it (or them) to carry out its functions fully and effectively?
We believe that regulation in the area of assisted human reproduction should be sufficiently funded by grant-in-aid to avoid any conflicts of interest. No authority should have a positive incentive to issue licences for fees in order to maintain its own existence.
Q6. Should the regulatory body or bodies be allowed to make charges for licenses?
See Q5. Any administrative charges should be minimal so as not to create conflicts of interest.
Q7. (a) Do you agree with new definitions in the draft Bill of 'embryo', 'egg', 'sperm', 'gamete', 'nucleus'? If not, how would you propose to amend them?
'embryo' – We emphasise that inter-species embryos involving humans should never be created. If they are, they should not be excluded from the definition of 'embryo'.
'egg' - Yes
'sperm' – Yes
'gamete' – Yes
'nucleus' - Yes
(b) Should the Secretary of State have the regulation-making power to expand these definitions as proposed in the draft Bill?
No. Such proposed changes would necessarily involve major ethical departures. These should require the consent of Parliament.
Q8 Do you support:
(i) the approach signalled by the Government in the White Paper,
Not fully, although this is closest to our position. As were the clear majority of respondents to the original Department of Health consultation, we are fundamentally opposed to the creation of any inter-species embryos involving humans. As our CMF File No 34 (Chimeras, hybrids and 'cybrids') attached to the paper version of this evidence makes clear, we believe the language of biology alone is inadequate to encompass the relevant issues here. We believe such entities would undermine human dignity by blurring the boundaries of nature; would mar 'the image of God' present in all human beings; would breach the much-repeated biblical prohibition of the mixing of 'kinds'; would confuse historicity/lineage; would fundamentally affect all human relationships and especially marriage and the family; and would cross an ethical line by creating something both fundamentally new but unnecessary.
(ii) the new approach announced by the Government
No. See (i)
(iii) the approach recommended by the Commons Science and Technology Committee?
No. See (i)
Q8 ('8' is mistakenly repeated in the call for evidence). How should Parliament approach legislating for those purposes for which licences for research may be granted in the future (arising out of future research) but that are not yet determined? Should such judgements be left to the regulatory body or bodies to determine?
See Para 6/Q2(i)
Q9. How should Parliament or the regulatory body or bodies take public views and public engagement into account?
See Para 7/Q3
Q10. What are your views on the provisions in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2 setting out the conditions under which
(a) embryos can be tested
We believe that embryos with serious genetic diseases are human beings with special needs and who deserve protection, care and treatment. Pre-implantation genetic diagnosis by contrast searches out such individuals for destruction. There is a difference between screening aimed at identifying individuals for treatment and screening aimed at eliminating those individuals.
(b) and sex selection practices can be carried out?
See (a). We oppose sex selection for medical or social reasons.
Q11. What are your views on the proposed changes to consent provisions?
Our concerns about storage of gametes are about safety for any agreed future use, and about consent issues. We do not believe embryonic human beings should be created and frozen in storage. Inter-species embryos involving humans should never be created.
Q12. What are your views on the proposal in the draft Bill to remove from the existing conditions of treatment the requirement to take account of “the need of that child for a father” before treatment services can be provided?
We strongly uphold the historic Christian teaching that children should be born into a family headed by two parents of the opposite sex. 'Defending the fatherless' is a Christian duty. We believe it is fundamentally wrong to create children without any regard for 'the need of that child for a father'.
We have seen the social consequences of fatherless children and society has recently legislated for penalties against absent fathers. The signal sent by this proposal flies in the face of that growing public recognition of the need for a father.
Q13. What are your views on the approach to the welfare of the child provisions in clause 21?
The welfare of the child should be paramount.
Q14. Do you support the proposal to increase the storage period from 5 to 10 years? Should the storage period for gametes and embryos be limited by statute at all?
See Para 14/Q11. We do not believe human embryos should be stored frozen. The storage of gametes should be subject to safety in any agreed future use and to consent issues. Gamete storage will require some ultimate statutory limitations.
Q15. What are your views on the provisions about the Register and access to it in clauses 31, 32 and 33 of the draft Bill?
We have emphasised in Para 11/Q8(i) the importance of historicity/lineage to human identity, and thus support information being made available to people conceived by donor.
In principle we would extend to donor-conceived people about to enter a civil partnership the same provisions as for those about to enter marriage. However, those entering marriage have the potential medical reason of genetics as well as one of lineage for knowing whether they are related to the one they plan to marry. This presumably does not apply in the case of civil partnerships, and we would oppose further future abuses of reproductive technology that may be in mind to facilitate two of the same sex creating a child 'together'.
Q16. What are your views on the provisions covering parenthood and consent in Part 3 of the draft Bill? Are there any particular provisions in these clauses you would seek to change?
We strongly support the historic Christian teaching of marriage as a union which is heterosexual, monogamous, publicly recognised, sexual, and ends only at death. Within that context alone, some Christians would see artificial reproductive technology as ethical.
Q17. Is it either desirable or appropriate for Parliament to seek to legislate in this way for future technology, both in general terms and in the particular cases identified? Is such legislation likely to be legally effective?
Each case is different. We refer briefly to the two examples quoted. Notwithstanding the possible medical justification for mitochondrial diseases, we do not believe any child should have 'two mothers' and think the ethical issues here justify a further debate by Parliament should that technological possibility arrive. Conversely, we do believe sex selection for social reasons should always be proscribed and that any technology (such as sperm sorting kits) to achieve that end could be banned in legislation now.
Q18. Should this be a matter for the regulatory body? Or for the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE)? Should it be regulated at all?
It would seem strange if issues around embryo transfer were the only ones to be outside the remit of an authority regulating reproduction.
Q19. Are there any other provisions in the draft Bill, or provisions you would like to see in the draft Bill, on which you would like to give your views?
We are clearly concerned by many of the provisions of the 1990 HFE Act, but accept that they have been passed as law. Apart from reiterating our concern that merging the HTA and HFEA into RATE is logistically and ethically inappropriate, we emphasise our opposition in any 2007 legislation to the extreme proposals about creating human-animal hybrids (or 'cybrids' or chimeras) and about removing reference to the need of a child for a father. Both proposals are unnecessary, unsafe, and unethical.
Steven Fouch (CMF Head of Communications) 020 7234 9668
Alistair Thompson on 07970 162 225
Christian Medical Fellowship (CMF) was founded in 1949 and is an interdenominational organisation with over 5,000 doctors, 900medical and nursing students and 300 nurses and midwives as members in all branches of medicine, nursing and midwifery. A registered charity, it is linked to over 100 similar bodies in other countries throughout the world.
CMF exists to unite Christian healthcare professionals to pursue the highest ethical standards in Christian and professional life and to increase faith in Christ and acceptance of his ethical teaching.
