On Free Votes

21 May 2008



Google
WWW Kensington Review

Commons Keeps Britain in 21st Century with Embryo Bill

The House of Commons has been holding a quite grown up and hotly contested debate over the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. While there is still some legislating to be done before the bill receives Royal Assent, the House has been quite definitely on the side of progress and enlightenment over the matters addressed thus far. Despite the best efforts of well-meaning, but wrong, restrictionists, the UK is going to remain part of the 21st century on matters of embryology.

The first big issue that needed defeating was a ban on human-animal hybrid embryos, which was shot down 336 to 176. These so-called “admixed” embryos result from implanting a nucleus from a human cell into an egg of a non-human species. The opponents of this procedure included ex-minister Edward Leigh, who called them “ethically wrong and almost certainly medically useless.” He claimed there was “no evidence yet to substantiate” such hybrids would help in curing degenerative diseases. But that is the entire point of scientific research.

As for “ethically wrong,” it is difficult to complain that the egg, which has no animal genetic content after the human nucleus in implanted, is harming either the animal or the human. Indeed, the whole idea that there is some vast difference between humans and animals genetically is untrue. Humans and chimps share 98+% of their DNA. Indeed, humans and bananas are 50% identical. Liberal Democrat Evan Harris nailed it when he said, “If it's ethically acceptable to use up and destroy fully human embryos with all the potential they have, how is it right to provide for hybrid embryos, with less potential of viability, greater protection?”

The next issue that the House got right was defeating a ban on “saviour siblings.” In this case, a sick child could be saved if the parents have a baby who can then donate compatible tissue. Tory David Burrowes argued that it was wrong to create a child for the benefit of another regardless of “the need.” That is an ethical conundrum, one must admit. Nevertheless, one would argue that the state lacks the ethical capability to interfere with such intimate family decisions.

The House also shot down an attempt to cut the limit on abortions in the country from 24 weeks. Several votes were held changing the number to 12, to 22 and to various numbers in between. Those in favor of a change argued that medicine had progressed to the stage where viability of a fetus was earlier than 24 weeks. Labour MP Kevin Barron, chairman of the Commons health committee, said, “If medical science was telling us that we ought to reduce the limit of weeks that we have, then maybe that's something that we should do, but it should be driven by science and not driven by some of the debate that we heard last night.” This issue may well be revisited, and a more enlightened scientific debate could change the law.

© Copyright 2008 by The Kensington Review, Jeff Myhre, PhD, Editor. No part of this publication may be reproduced without written consent. Produced using Fedora Linux.

Kensington Review Home