The Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill

This is a copy of the letter that I have sent to my own Westminster MP, Mr Frank Roy.

Dear Mr Roy,

Although I am aware that the debate on the Human Fertilisation & Embryology Bill has already commenced, I am contacting you more fully, than by the e-card already sent, in order to ask you to consider the following points, and to vote accordingly.

1. Animal-human embryos
This proposal would, if accepted, cross all natural and ethical boundaries. It is a simple fact that there is no natural crossing of “kinds” (or genii). This proposal may well have been presented with the superficially commendable objective of producing stem-cells that may be used to discover new treatments for certain diseases, and to replace damaged tissue. However, it is my understanding that adult stem-cells have already been used successfully in this area of medical research – and this route does not create any ethical concerns. If Parliament were to succumb to the demands of certain scientists in this way, then I would maintain that it would be guilty of destroying the very definition of what a human being is.

2. “Saviour siblings”
This, as you will be fully aware, would effectively involve the creation of a living being simply to provide “spare parts” for another human being. While I can understand the desire of parents to do everything possible for a child who suffers from a severe medical condition (a concept, by the way, that appears not to be any more fully defined in the Bill), I fear for the psychological damage that would be done to the child who discovers that the basic reason for its being is not the love between its parents, but the love that they had for a sibling. Even Lord Winston, the pioneer of much of IVF technology, has voiced fears that this legislation, should it be approved, would provide a real risk that children might be used and, therefore, abused because of this technology.

3. The removal of the requirement for a father for IVF treatment children
It is my understanding that current legislation requires that children conceived through IVF treatment must have a father – in more than a biological sense. This, I would suggest, is eminently sensible, as it is the way of nature, and has been successful for a very long time. The proposed legislation seems to be yet another move towards the making of single-gender relationships to be identical to those of heterosexual couples. This, also, I would contend, goes totally against the natural law that requires one parent of each gender for conception, and that works best when there are two role-models, one of each gender, for the growing child. One does not have to be a social scientist to realise that the breakdown of the traditional family unit has been paralleled by a general breakdown in society.

4. The abortion limit
Reports suggest that certain members will use the passage of this Bill to further liberalise the terms of the Abortion Act (1967) that has already been responsible for the deaths of almost seven million children in Great Britain. According to the government’s own figures for England and Wales (2006), less than one-half of one per cent of these were because of a serious risk to the life of the mother! These figures, of course, do not include early abortion by the use of the “morning-after pill”. The recent report on the survival of prematurely-born infants has been used by the “pro-choice” lobby to suggest that there should be no reduction in the time limit. However, this is, in no way, comparing like with like. All around the area in which we both reside are signs that remind us that, in the area of vehicle speed, and for the safety of young children, “20’s Plenty”. May I suggest that, in the case of the unborn children of our nation, twenty weeks is also plenty, and urge you to support any motion that would reduce the maximum to that amount?

I fully appreciate that, as a Government Whip, you may feel some sort of required loyalty to the Party. However, a free vote has been offered with regard to any amendment, and I would urge you to vote in favour of those that would address the matters I have raised above, so that the final Bill might be more morally and ethically acceptable.

Yours sincerely,