February 26, 2008
Human
Dignity in the Balance
Britain Reconsiders Hybrids and Fathers
By Father John Flynn, LC
ROME, FEB. 25, 2008 (Zenit.org).-
A proposed new law regulating in-vitro fertilization in the
United Kingdom is under fire from the Church and bioethics
groups, who are concerned over the loosening of regulations
regarding the procedure. The Human Fertilization and Embryology
Bill has finished its passage through the House of Lords and
will be debated in the Commons in the near future.
The bill concerns “profound questions of human life and
dignity,” warned a pastoral message released Feb. 19 by Cardinal
Cormac Murphy-O’Connor on behalf of the bishops of England and
Wales.
In his message the archbishop of Westminster noted that among
the changes contemplated in the bill is the extension of
scientific experiments using human embryos, and even the
creation of animal-human hybrid embryos for research. It also
removes a clause from the existing law, which requires the
child’s need for a father to be taken into consideration when
clinics receive requests for IVF treatment.
In addition to drawing attention to these dangers, Cardinal
Murphy-O’Connor asked that members of Parliament should be
granted a free vote on the bill, so they can follow their
conscience.
According to press reports, some members of the Labor Party
government are criticizing the lack of a conscience vote on the
bill. Cabinet ministers Ruth Kelly and Paul Murphy are leading
the call for parliamentarians to be given a free vote, reported
the Observer newspaper on Jan. 27. According to the article, at
the moment Labor Party officials are only going to allow a
conscience vote on amendments that may be proposed on the issue
of abortion.
Modified life
One of the groups active in organizing opposition to the
proposed changes is the nondenominational charity the Christian
Institute. In a briefing on problems with the bill, the
institute noted that in addition to the creation of hybrid
embryos and fatherless families the legislation proposes
loosening restrictions on the use of embryo screening.
If approved the bill will allow the creation of “savior
siblings,” embryos created through a combination of genetic
screening and IVF, whose tissues are used for brothers or
sisters with health problems. The Christian Institute also
warned that the legislation fails to define which tissues could
be used from the embryos, opening up the possibility of allowing
even the harvesting of organs.
Another concern over the bill is that it will permit human
embryos to be created using two genetic mothers and a father.
This would happen in the case of a woman who has defects in the
mitochondria of her egg, the part which surrounds the nucleus.
In such cases the nucleus would be transferred into the healthy
egg of a second woman.
Another group protesting against the bill is Human Genetics
Alert (HGA). In a Dec. 20 letter sent to Dawn Primarolo,
Minister of State for Public Health, HGA director David King
adverted that the bill will allow genetic modification of human
embryos, the first step toward creating GM babies.
The bill will, in fact, remove a ban in the existing law
regulating IVF on any genetic modification of human embryos. “It
is the first time that any country has officially sanctioned
genetic engineering of human embryos as the first step toward
allowing human genetic modification,” King commented.
The letter explained that due to its eugenic implications, human
genetic modification has been treated in international law very
similarly to human reproductive cloning, with most countries
banning its use.
Embryos as commodities
The changes proposed by the government raise “huge concerns
about eugenics and the treatment of human embryos and children
as commodities,” King declared. The use of genetic modification
will potentially enable parents to engineer “enhanced” children,
thus degrading human subjects into objects.
Even before the new law comes into effect, regulatory
authorities are loosening restrictions on how embryos are
treated. The Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority
granted a team of scientists permission to create the first
human-animal embryo, reported the BBC on Jan. 17.
Two centers, King's College London and Newcastle University,
were given one-year research licenses. Dr. Stephen Minger and
colleagues at King's College London want to create hybrids to
study diseases known to have genetic causes, the BBC reported.
The embryos will be created, and destroyed within a few days of
existence, in order to produce stem cells to be used by
scientists in their research.
John Smeaton, national director of the Society for the
Protection of Unborn Children, qualified the approval as
“disastrous” in a Jan. 17 press release.
“It is creating a category of beings regarded as sub-human who
can be used as raw material to benefit other members of the
human family, effectively creating a new class of slaves,” he
declared.
Strong protests against the creation of animal-human hybrids
came earlier from Scotland’s bishops in the debate over the
Human Fertilization and Embryology Bill.
A pastoral letter issued in January by Archbishop Mario Conti,
President of the Joint Bioethics Committee on behalf of the
archbishops and bishops of Scotland, called attention to the
damage inflicted on human dignity by such processes.
Archbishop Conti acknowledged the desire to help those affected
by diseases, “but we should never seek to do good by doing
wrong,” he observed.
Another Scottish prelate, Bishop Philip Tartaglia, preached a
homily criticizing the creation of animal-human hybrids Jan. 20.
In his homily, given at St. Mirin’s Cathedral in the Diocese of
Paisley, Bishop Tartaglia commented on the continual
state-sponsored attacks on unborn human life. Calling the hybrid
proposal a “twisted enterprise” he said that the Church is not
anti-science, affirming that it has a lot to contribute to
improving the world.
“But science can also destroy mankind and
the world if it is not directed by a higher wisdom and by
well-informed conscientious decisions of men and women of good
will and of good faith,” Bishop Tartaglia added.
Both parents needed
The proposal to eliminate the requirement to consider the need
for a father has also been strongly reproved. Among critics is
Baroness Ruth Deech, chairman of the Human Fertilization and
Embryology Authority from 1994 to 2002.
In an opinion article published by the Times newspaper Jan. 17,
Baroness Deech noted that instead of requiring the need for a
father to be considered, the bill proposes that IVF clinics
ponder “the need for supportive parenting.”
She termed this change, “unacceptable and inappropriate,” as it
is difficult to interpret and will do little to safeguard the
welfare of the child. “A substantial amount of research has
demonstrated that fathers make a distinctive contribution to
child rearing, without which children are generally the poorer,”
she commented.
“We all want to see women fulfilling their wish to become
mothers, but one cannot overlook the contribution made by half
the human race to the upbringing of the next generation,” she
continued.
“At the heart of the family is that unique bond between father,
mother and child,” observed Archbishop Vincent Nichols, in an
opinion article published by the Telegraph newspaper Dec. 23.
The legislation being proposed removes the need for any
acknowledgment of a father in the record of a child's birth, he
noted. “Yet fatherhood is so much more than the donation of
sperm. It is the giving of a whole complex of life-forming
factors, whose influence cannot be avoided."
“The future of our society passes by way of the family,”
Archbishop Nichols concluded. A bleak future indeed, if the
British government’s proposals are approved in coming weeks by
the House of Commons.
