Bill worth disputing

Many who feel that their views were ignored during the drafting of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, which has its second reading in the House of Lords on Monday, are hoping their beliefs will be now aired during the expected fierce debate

Abortion may well make the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill the most controversial of the current session of Parliament, in part because it will allow debate about the possibility of amending its upper time limit. But discussion on the vexed issue of abortion is not the only significant aspect of this Bill, which raises other great concerns too -about hybrid embryos, about the welfare of the child, and about how future decisions in this field of research are to be made.

In last week's Queen's Speech the rationale given for the Bill was "to ensure that Britain remains at the forefront of medical research". It is certainly true that Britain is well ahead in this area: the first "test tube" baby in 1978; the first to screen embryos using "pre-implantation genetic diagnosis" (PGD) in 1990; the first cloned sheep in 1996. However, while Britain is on the cutting edge of the science, it does not meet the ethical standards of other countries. It has all the bureaucracy of regulation but it accepts fewer ethical limits.

Other countries have ratified the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine, which prohibits the creation of human embryos purely for research. The United Kingdom has not done so. In 2005 the United Nations called on member states "to prohibit all forms of human cloning inasmuch as they are incompatible with human dignity and the protection of human life". This was a non-binding ethical declaration and the United Kingdom voted against it.

Similarly the present bill permits experiments that much of the world would like to see outlawed. Scientists are even permitted to create "true hybrids", embryos that would have a human parent and a non-human parent. These embryos would be destroyed at 14 days but the question remains: what kind of creatures would they be? These experiments overstep an important limit.

The bill also proposes important changes with regard to the welfare of children conceived through in vitro fertilisation (IVF). The present law states that those offering treatment for infertility must consider the welfare of the child, "including a child's need for a father". However, in order to accommodate gay couples and single women seeking to become mothers, the bill cuts the reference to the need for a father.

Another point on the welfare of the child relates to genetic screening. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA), allowed embryos to be screened to select a child who could help his sick brother or sister. A "saviour sibling" was allowed when what was needed could be obtained from the discarded umbilical cord. The bill goes further and seems to allow PGD to select a child as a possible organ donor.

Proposed legislation also allows the commercialisation of surrogate motherhood on condition that agencies run on a "not-for-profit" basis. Surrogacy agencies could charge for reasonable expenses and could advertise their services.

For the past 17 years significant decisions about embryo research and embryo screening have been determined by the HFEA. This body is not elected and has systematically excluded those with pro-life views. In 2002 Suzi Leather, then chair of the authority, said: "I don't think we need them continually on the committee saying that I am opposed to all of this." Parliament's joint committee on the draft Bill seemed to sanction this discrimination, saying: "Those with such public views cannot administer the law to which they may be fundamentally opposed."

The cloud of discrimination also hangs over the House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee. In its inquiry on abortion, it tried to discover the religious affiliation of witnesses in order to discredit them. Evan Harris MP, defending this, argued that "our witnesses need to be evidence-led, not ideologically or theologically driven". This clearly implies that evidence to Parliament by members of religious minorities was not treated equally favourably as evidence of those with no religious affiliation. The current bill does nothing to address these issues. The HFEA retains significant powers and other powers are given to the Secretary of State. The Government has not yet heeded calls for a national bioethics committee.

On the issue of abortion, both sides will introduce amendments to try to change the present law. On one side, some will be pushing for still easier access to abortion: dropping the requirement for two doctors to sign; allowing abortions to be carried out by a senior nurse; dropping the requirement that abortion take place in a hospital or clinic. On the other side, amendments will be proposed to tighten the law: reducing the time limit for abortion; placing limits on abortion for reason of disability; and introducing a cooling-off period.

There is a danger that this will be thought of as a bill about abortion and that the abortion issue will be thought of as a debate about time limits. In the media the debate has been focusing mainly on late abortion, foetal pain and viability before 24 weeks. Among pro-life groups, opinion about this is divided. One of the most active pro-life initiatives of the current time, "Alive and Kicking", has as its first objective "an immediate, substantial reduction in the upper age limit for abortion". In stark contrast, the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children (or Spuc) has criticised any attempt to change the law on abortion. They argue that in the current parliamentary climate any change would be for the worse.

There has been a suggestion from the pro-abortion lobby that a "compromise" could be reached whereby, for example, the time limit for abortion would be reduced to 20 weeks while abortion in the first 12 weeks would become easier. It is important to note that there are very few abortions after 20 weeks and that most abortions occur in the first 10 weeks. The effect of this "compromise" would most likely be an increase in the number of abortions.

While the abortion rate in the country continues to climb, there is a growing public feeling that we should be trying to make abortion rare. From this perspective, it is most important to concentrate on amendments that affect all or most abortions, both opposing those that make abortion easier and supporting amendments that help women to keep their children. This is not to say that it is wrong to press for a lower time limit. It is simply to caution against making time limits for abortion the primary focus.

On the other issues  - hybrids, fatherhood, surrogacy businesses, organ-donor children and who makes the overall decisions - a key policy principle for the Government is "to promote public confidence" through a system of regulation. Policy is thus based less on the intrinsic ethics of the issues and more on the need to maintain public trust in the system.

The bill is premised on the view that the majority of the public is indifferent on these other issues and so the Government is free to deregulate. If an issue were suddenly to ignite in the media to the extent that there seemed to be a danger that the public might lose trust in the structures of regulation, then the Government's position would shift to address this. However, if few people speak out then it will be presumed that most people are happy enough with what is being proposed. On these issues at this time, a sustained effort to raise awareness with the public, in the media, and with local MPs could therefore make all the difference. It is not a done deal.