Hybrid embryos
What is the law at present?
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 allows human embryos to be used in experimentation. It allows humans to be conceived purely for the sake of research, if they are destroyed before 14 days. It even permits scientists to produce embryos who are clones, genetic copies of an existing person.
What is proposed in the Bill?
The Bill goes even further. It allows scientists to create genetically modified human embryos. It also allows scientists to create embryos that would be part human, part non human. This can be done using an egg from a cow (or some other animal), taking the nucleus out, and replacing it with the nucleus of a human cell. Embryos made by replacing the nucleus in this way are sometimes called ‘cybrids’. The Bill also allows scientists to create ‘true hybrids’. These are produced from the sperm /egg of a human being and the egg / sperm of an animal.
Why do Scientists want to create hybrids?
Two teams of scientists have asked to make ‘cybrids’. This is because cloning is still very difficult and unreliable. Instead of going back to animal models, the scientists want to try human cloning using animal eggs. No scientists in the United Kingdom currently want to create ‘true hybrids’.
What does the Church teach?
In the past the Church did not consider the prospect of scientists deliberately producing creatures who are a mixture of human and non human. Nevertheless, there is Catholic teaching that can help us. The Church teaches that God is the Creator of everything there is, and that this creation is good, reflecting God’s own goodness. At the same time human beings are distinct from other animals. We are made in the image of God and God became a human being in Jesus Christ. To seek to produce a creature who is a mixture of human and non human is not compatible with respect for the human nature that God creates and redeems. Also it fails to respect the harmony of creation as a whole or to recognise that human beings ‘are part of creation, formed out of the earth, and dependent on the rest of creation for our continued existence’ (Care of Creation). Bishop Elio Sgreccia, President of the Pontifical Academy for Life has described the proposal to create hybrids as ‘a monstrous act against human dignity’.
What can natural reason tell us about the ethics of making hybrids?
Politicians and people in the media will not be impressed by arguments framed in religious terms. What does natural reason have to tell us about making hybrids? It is not easy to say precisely what is wrong with mixing human and animal. Many people feel an instinctive reaction against it, but they find it hard to put into words. There is something wrong here, and we should try to help people find the words to express it.
We are human beings. This is what we have in common. This is the basis of human rights. We oppose discrimination on the basis of race or sex or age or disability between peoplewho are equally human. We treat other animals differently. We should treat them well and not cruelly, but we do not treat them as human. The idea of sex with an animal is repugnantbecause human sexuality is adapted to express love between human persons. Mixing a human and a non human animal fails to respect our common humanity, which is the basis of
our community.
But if the embryos are not implanted what is the problem?
In every country people treat human embryos and animal embryos differently. In the UK a special license is needed to work with human embryos. An embryo is always an embryo of something. We can only understand what an embryo is if we think what it will be like when it grows up. An interspecies embryo is an embryo of a mixed human-non human creature. We will already have crossed a human with an animal. And if scientists do create such a hybrid, who knows if someone somewhere will implant it in an animal?
What are the arguments in favour of permitting hybrids?
Politicians and scientists who wish to permit the creation of hybrids will say that this is necessary for the progress of scientific knowledge. They will say that ‘cybrids’ will help us make embryonic stem cells and cure diseases like Parkinson’s.
What are the counter arguments?
If something is unethical, it should not be done. There must be some limits on what we allow scientists to do in the name of research. There is an ethical alternative. We know that adult stem cells have produced seventy therapies where embryonic stem cells have produced none. There are also other promising alternatives (the Japanese have succeeded in a new way to get stem cells). The proposal to create ‘cybrids’ is a kind of shortcut to try to bypass the problems of human cloning. Even from a purely scientific perspective, it is of dubious value. If human cloning is the goal (and this itself is a dubious goal) what is needed is more understanding of cloning in animals. In 2007, Ian Wilmut, who helped clone Dolly the Sheep, announced that he is giving up on cloning embryos for their stem cells because other sources of stem cells are scientifically more promising. The scientific case for ‘cybrids’ (which are mostly human, in terms of their DNA) is in fact very weak. There are better alternatives. There is no case whatsoever for allowing the creation of half-human half-animal ‘truehybrids’. The government is proposing to permit this even though no one can think of a good reason to do it. There is no proposed medical benefit.
What changes should we push for in the Bill?
To amend the Bill so that it prohibits the creation of all part human, part animal hybrids (what the Bill calls ‘interspecies embryos’). To prohibit any use of human embryos in research.
The Welfare of the Child
What is the law at present?
The present law states that, when a clinic gives infertility treatment, it must consider the welfare of the child who would be born, including the need of the child for a father. In practice, clinics allow single women and lesbian couples to have infertility treatment. Surrogate mother contracts are not recognised by law and businesses are forbidden from profiting for arranging surrogacy. The law allows parents to screen out unwanted embryos (pre-implantation genetic diagnosis or PGD) to have a child without a disability. If a family has a seriously ill child, the law allows them to use PGD to select another child who could help the first: a ‘saviour sibling’. This is allowed where what is used is blood from the umbilical cord.
What does the Bill say about the child’s need for a father?
The Bill drops any reference to the ‘need for a father’. It also gives the legal status of parent to the partner of the mother. If the couple were women in a civil partnership then the birth certificate would record the other woman as the ‘father’. The child would be deprived of knowledge of his or her biological father.
What does the Bill say about Surrogate mothers?
The Bill also allows ‘surrogacy’ agencies to run on a not-for-profit basis and to advertise their services. They would arrange for a woman to conceive, carry and then to give up her child. This raises obvious dangers of exploitation for the ‘birth mother’ in addition to concerns for the child. The agency would enable a child to be conceived who would then be estranged from his or her birth mother.
What does the Bill say about Saviour Siblings?
The Bill also allows parents to select a child to donate tissues and organs. There is a danger that such a child could be thought of as a donor from birth. This also erodes the principle of consent. The child might face years of donating tissues.
What does the Church teach?
The Church teaches that the union of man and woman in marriage is ordained by God. Not everyone is called to marriage, and not all who marry are blessed with children, but every child ought to be the fruit of the union of a man and a woman who are committed to one another and to the care of their child. ‘The child has the right to be conceived, carried in the womb, brought into the world and brought up within marriage: it is through the secure and recognized relationship to his own parents that the child can discover his own identity and achieve his own proper human development.’ (Instruction on Respect for Human Life II A.1)
Thus a child should only be given into the care of others if the parents are not able to raise the child. Adoption is a response to a situation that no one planned. It is utterly wrong to plan to bring a child into the world who will be alienated from one or both parents.
What can natural reason tell us about the welfare of the child?
When it comes to adoption the children being adopted rightly have priority over the wishes of couples to adopt. Hence the State takes responsibility for regulating the process of adoption. Assisted reproduction also involves the state and its duty to safeguard the interests of children. As State-regulated clinics are involved in the conception, the State has some responsibility for the child. It also has a responsibility to document accurately the parentage of the child. It is one thing for a parent to mislead a child about his or her origins, it is quite
another for officials of the State knowingly to include false information on its official documents.
What are the arguments in favour of dropping ‘the need for a father’?
The reasons for dropping reference to the need for a father are to do with single women, and women in civil partnerships. The government wishes to make explicit that single women and women in civil partnerships are legally allowed to have fertility treatment, even though they are not usually infertile women. Some people also say that referring to the need for a father fails to reflect the current social reality of this country, in which many children are brought up by single parents. They say it is insulting to women who are single parents to say that a child needs a father.
What are the counter arguments?
The current law allows single women and women in civil partnerships to have fertility treatment. So, even from the perspective of those who wish to promote this, there is no necessity to change the law. On the other hand the dropping of mention of a father, particularly when the need for a father had previously been mentioned in the law, sends a very harmful message to society. It is not disparaging to the great efforts of single parents to say that a child is missing something of importance when he or she has no father. It is not in the interests of women or children or of society as a whole, to weaken the sense of responsibility that fathers should have for their children. The experience of children who have been adopted has shown us how much some children desire to know about their origins. Many children conceived by donor sperm experience a similar need, and this is now acknowledged in the law. Children have a right to know about
their biological parents. This gives a further reason why the law should not permit or require false statements to be put on birth certificates. A birth certificate should not describe two women as the ‘mother’ and ‘father’ of a child.
What changes should we push for in the Bill?
To amend the Bill so that it retains the reference in existing law to the need of a child for a father. The Bill should also include a reference to the child’s right to know about his or her origins. To amend the Bill so it prohibits making money out of surrogate mothers. To amend the Bill so it prohibits selection of a child as a tissue or organ donor.
How Future Decisions are Made
What is the situation at present?
At present, many important decisions about embryos and infertility treatment are made by a body called the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). The HFEA is not elected and it does not represent a full range of views. It appears to exclude anyone with a consistent pro-life position.
What is proposed in the Bill?
The Bill contains nothing that would ensure that future decision-making becomes more inclusive. The Bill continues to give the Secretary of State and the HFEA powers to apply the law in new situations without reference to ethical guidance. The Bill does not even provide a moral framework for these decisions. There is a detailed definition of what is meant by a ‘human embryo’, but there is nothing on the moral status of the human embryo or the protection due to the embryo.
What does the Church teach?
The Church teaches that public authorities have the common good as their prime responsibility. ‘The common good cannot exclude or exempt any section of the population. If any section of the population is in fact excluded from participation in the life of the community, even at a minimal level, then that is a contradiction to the concept of the common good and calls for rectification.’ (Common Good 70). The Second Vatican Council states clearly that ‘any kind of social and cultural discrimination… must be curbed and eradicated as incompatible with God’s design’ (The Church in the Modern World, paragraph 29). Thus the Church speaks not only for the rights and duties of Catholics to be involved in the political
process but for those of all citizens.
Why do we need a National Bioethics Commission?
Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor has joined others in urging that the Bill be used to create a statutory National Bioethics Commission. This could bring together a broad spectrum of experts with a clear mandate and an independent advisory role. Only such an authoritative and independent body can ensure that serious ethical scrutiny is no longer an afterthought, but a precondition of such research.
Would there be dangers in setting up National Bioethics Commission?
The setting up of a national commission would not guarantee that sound ethical judgments were made. There is a danger of disillusionment or even of scandal if and when the commission advocated some view that was incompatible with a Catholic and a fully human view of life. Such a body must be set up so that people can register their dissent in such cases. Nevertheless, a body that was committed to representing a range of views, including a Catholic perspective, would certainly be an improvement on what we have at present.
What can natural reason tell us about how bioethical issues should be regulated?
We know that people sometimes make decisions on the basis of financial self-interest, or because of professional or national prestige, rather than out of respect for the ethical issues. This is why research is not a ‘free for all’ but is regulated, and regulations are ultimately set by Parliament. Nevertheless, politicians also may act for political rather than ethical reasons. We also realize that there are some deep disagreements within society on bioethical issues,
from abortion to genetic modification of food. The expertise society needs to make decisions well in this area is not purely scientific knowledge but is also understandingbecause democracy automatically gives the right answer, but it is because
a broader range will be more likely to include and identify the relevant ethical considerations.
What are the arguments the government raises against a National Bioethics Commission?
The main opposition to a National Bioethics Commission has come from the government and, in particular, from the Department of Health. They argue that the Human Genetics Commission, the HFEA, various Parliamentary Committees, and other advisory bodies provide all the ethical advice that is necessary.
What are the counter arguments?
It is precisely because there are a number of different bodies that give ethical advice, butnone of them has particular weight or statutory authority, that ethical issues can take a second place in the debate. In practice decisions are made by the HFEA or by the government for political as well as ethical reasons. The Bill gives more scope to the Secretary of State to make decisions, but does not ensure that these decisions are made in a transparent way. Decisions on new issues with bioethical significance should not be taken without seeking a range of expert ethical advice, and making this advice public. There is widespread support among professionals and academics for a transparent, representative,
independent and expert body set up by statute to advise the government on ethical matters.
Should religious representatives be included?
There are some who accept the idea of a National Bioethics Commission but of what is good in human life. The reason for having a representative range of ethical opinion on a bioethics commission is not who do not think that religious voices should be included. They argue that in a secular society, public decisions should not be made on religious grounds. However, in every culture, religion is a major source of human values and provides a context for ethical reflection. Including religious representatives is a way to ensure that the experience and wisdom of their ethical traditions
is included in the discussion.
What changes should we push for in the Bill?
To amend the Bill so that future decisions about the implementation or interpretation of the law are taken by people with a full range of views and with proper ethical scrutiny. To press for the establishment of a National Bioethics Commission of the kind that exists in many other countries.
Abortion
What is the law at present?
The Abortion Act 1967, as amended in 1990, allows abortion up to twenty-four weeks if the risks ‘of injury to the physical or mental health’ of the mother or of her other children, are lessened by abortion rather than childbirth. This effectively allows abortion for personal and social reasons up to twenty-four weeks. If there is a ‘substantial risk’ that the unborn child is disabled, then abortion is allowed up to birth. The Abortion Act does not apply in Northern Ireland.
What is proposed in the Bill?
The Bill contains no proposals on abortion, but some Members of Parliament have already said that they want to amend the law to make abortion more easily available. These proposals may include:
• Dropping the requirement for two doctors’ signatures to certify abortion
• Allowing practitioners who are not medically qualified to perform abortions
• Extending the Abortion Act to cover Northern Ireland without a mandate from the people of Northern Ireland or their elected representatives
• Removing the right of doctors to conscientiously object to arranging or performing an abortion. It is also likely that amendments will be proposed that would limit the harm done by the law. These may include:
• Lowering of the twenty-four week upper limit for abortion for social reasons
• No longer regarding disability as a ground for abortion
• More rigorous requirements of informed consent for women seeking abortion
What does the Church teach?
The Church teaches very clearly that every human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception. (Catechism of the Catholic Church 2270) The first victim of abortion is the unborn child whose life is ended (Cherishing Life 173). The fact that the unborn child is totally dependent on his or her mother, and that his or her life is terminated with the consent of the mother, makes it more terrible, not less. In a secondary sense, the woman is also a victim for she loses her child but is unable to grieve effectively. The Church ‘does not doubt that in many cases it was a painful and even a shattering decision.’ (The Gospel of Life, paragraph 99) There may be financial or other pressures,
and those around the expectant mother may fail to give her the support she needs and deserves. ‘Sometimes the woman is subjected to such strong pressure that she feels psychologically forced to have an abortion.’ (The Gospel of Life, paragraph 59).
Is it right for a politician to vote for an amendment to a law that still allows some abortions?
Laws that permit direct abortion are unjust and involve discrimination against the unborn child. Politicians should not support or promote permissive abortion laws. However, in a country where abortion has come to be accepted, it may not be possible to achieve a just law. The Church teaches that, if it is not possible to overturn a pro-abortion law, a politician whose absolute personal opposition to abortion is well known, may morally support ‘proposals aimed at limiting the harm done by such a law and at lessening its negative consequences’. (The Gospel of Life, paragraph 73)
What can natural reason tell us about abortion?
Natural reason tells us that at fertilisation, a new human life begins that is neither the life of the mother nor the life of the father. Abortion brings this new life to an end. Even those who approve of abortion and embryo experimentation measure the development of the embryo in days from fertilisation. The Bill explicitly states that ‘references to an embryo include an egg that is in the rocess of fertilisation’. Natural reason also tells us that even from the sixth week of development fingers and toes are visible. Ultrasound pictures by Professor Stuart Campbell at London’s Create Health Clinic show the unborn child at twelve weeks stretching and kicking – long before the mother can feel it.
What are the arguments of those who wish to see abortion made easier?
Those who wish to see abortion made easier, say that the child in the womb, particularly in the first eight or nine weeks, is not fully developed and is not yet a human baby. They emphasise that it should be the mother who should make the decision as she is most immediately affected, and that she should have freedom of choice. They sometimes allege that opposition to abortion is purely a matter of religious belief and that religious belief should not be imposed upon others. Some people argue that access to abortion ought to be recognized as a human right and as part of ‘reproductive autonomy’.
What are the counter arguments?
In 2006 there were over 200,000 abortions in England and Wales. The great majority of people in England and Wales (over 80% polled) think that we should be looking for practical ways to reduce this figure. In the current situation, when writing to Members of Parliament or to the newspapers, it may be better to stress what is accepted by most people in this country: that abortion is always tragic; that many women regret the decision; that it should be properly informed; and that we should be trying to find ways to make abortion rarer. Even if the unborn
child does not have the same status in law as a born child, we all recognise the child in the womb as a baby when it is a wanted child. Most people accept that the developing life in the womb should be given at least some legal recognition, especially when it begins to look like a baby. Abortion should never be seen as equivalent to contraception. Abortion for reason of disability involves a double discrimination and many disabled people find it offensive that this is a ground for termination of pregnancy. The law should not give the impression that
disabled children are better off dead. Abortion is not primarily a matter of religion and it is more than a matter of personal choice. Freedom of choice is not absolute.
What changes should we push for in the Bill?
To oppose any amendment that would make abortion easier and more common. To support amendments to the Bill that would help make abortion rarer.
More information can be found on the Bishops’ Conference of England and Wales website www.catholicchurch.org.uk.