Update on Abortion and HFE Bill
After
the loss on the free vote issues during the Committee of the Whole
House, which included abortion, saviour siblings, the need for a
father and animal-human hybrids, the rest of the Bill has been
considered by the Public Bill Committee.After the loss on the free vote issues during the Committee of the Whole House, which included abortion, saviour siblings, the need for a father and animal-human hybrids, the rest of the Bill has been considered by the Public Bill Committee. The Public Bill Committee finished considerations of the Bill on 12th June and it will be sent back to the floor of the House of Commons for further amendment at Report Stage, which is not likely to be before 30th June. Report Stage is the last opportunity for MPs to amend the Bill.
Abortion—Urgent Call to Prayer and Action
Evan Harris MP has tabled two liberalising amendments for Report Stage of the HFE Bill on Friday, 13th June:
Evan Harris/Chris McCafferty: An amendment to allow abortion with one doctor’s signature only and to allow abortions up to 24 weeks on request (i.e. without any need to claim that continuing the pregnancy would endanger the physical or mental health of the mother).
Frank Dobson/Evan Harris: An amendment allowing nurse and midwife-led abortion.
The result of the first amendment is that abortion would be allowed on demand up to 24 weeks’ gestation with one doctor’s signature only, which combined with the second amendment could include nurse-led medical abortions in polyclinics with completion at home—the worst case scenario.
The abolition of the need for two doctors’ signatures would not, as is widely supposed, speed up the process for abortion: there are no delays caused by the current ‘two doctors’ requirement, as the Government themselves stated to the Science and Technology Committee. What the abolition would do is to prevent the woman from seeing a second doctor, who may have pro-life views, and to prevent her from having a second chance to think the matter over or to request counselling.
Changing the Abortion Act so that abortion is allowed on request would not change current practice, but it would significantly change the law. Our view is that where a piece of legislation is frequently honoured in the breach, as here, the best solution is not to do away with it, but to consider enforcing its original intentions.
The need for only a single doctor’s signature will remove an important safeguard for all abortions. Concern has already been expressed in relation to disability abortions which can be performed up to birth for seriously handicapped foetuses. Two doctors have allowed abortions for conditions such as club foot and cleft palate. These types of errors of judgment will be even more likely to occur if only one doctor’s opinion formed in good faith is required.
Regarding the second proposed amendment, in our opinion nurse-led abortion is unsafe for patients, as nurses are not necessarily knowledgeable about all potential side-effects of abortificent drugs, nor do they have enough knowledge to assess the risks to a woman’s mental health. Insufficient consideration has been given to the trauma a woman must undergo in such an abortion, which may be ‘completed at home’. She may be alone when suffering immense pain, prolonged and sometimes profuse bleeding and the disposal of a dead foetus—all unsupported by medical staff. She may subsequently have flashbacks that remind her of the abortion in her home. She may be extremely concerned about the side-effects of the drugs and wonder if they are normal, all with no-one there to reassure her. Or worse still, having been told that she will undergo pain and bleeding, she then believes that the serious complications she experiences are part of the process and so fails to report them in time to her GP. In such cases, even medical staff can underestimate the seriousness of a woman’s complications, as in the case of Manon Jones, who recently died after a medical abortion that went wrong.
For the full story, see the link below:
It is of even greater concern that all abortions (apart from abortions needed for medical emergencies which would still be performed by a doctor) could be performed by a nurse or a midwife instead of a doctor at any stage of the pregnancy—even late abortions. In the case of disability, abortions may be performed up to birth. The good faith opinion of 2 doctors would still be required in this second amendment, but the nurse or midwife could actually terminate the pregnancy and perform the abortion itself.
For the text of the amendments, see the following link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmbills/070/amend/pb0701206a.2669-2670.html.
Please link to the information pack on abortion:
http://www.aliveandkickingcampaign.org/public/pdf/aaklobbypack.pdf.
The importance of praying and of contacting your MP with your views cannot be over-estimated. In order to send an e-mail to your MP, please use the following link: http://www.writetothem.com/.
Update on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill
The Public Bill Committee
There were 17 members of the Public Bill Committee, but unfortunately in view of the scientific nature of the issues in the Bill, the Committee was largely dominated by one or two members with liberalising agendas, which included Evan Harris MP.
Amendment 102
The Government have brought in and passed a major amendment which in our opinion should have been a conscience issue on which a free vote of the whole House should have been allowed, rather than having been subject to approval by this relatively small Committee.
This major amendment (number 102), which was approved on 5th June, will mean that three groups of individuals could have their human cells used to create cloned embryos of themselves or animal-human hybrids (‘human admixed embryos’) ‘for scientific research purposes’ without their explicit consent.
Two of the most vulnerable groups in society are to be exploited here: children and persons who lack capacity (such as the mentally ill), who themselves suffer from serious medical conditions, serious physical or mental disability, or serious illness. The research will create embryos or ‘human admixed embryos’ in order to research that child’s or mentally ill person’s particular serious illness, but scientists can also use their ‘human cells’ to research similar non-serious conditions. The substitute consent of a parent or carer will be taken as sufficient.
The third group whose human cells may be used without consent to create embryos or human admixed embryos for research purposes, are those who have donated their cells for research before human-animal hybrids were even thought of.
Link to amendment 102 and other linked amendments by the Government Minister (Dawn Primarolo), tabled on 5th June 2008 (amendment numbers are on the right hand side and are not in numerical order):
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmbills/070/amend/pb0700506m.116-122.html.
Amendment 114
This amendment says that such research using the mentally ill will not be regarded as ‘intrusive research’ (meaning research without consent where carers consent on their behalf) and thereby side steps the additional safeguards for intrusive research in the Mental Capacity Act 2005. Restrictions outlined in the Act and in the code of practice, (such as the research being in the best interests of the person concerned; the need to balance the benefit and burden of the research; the need to respect the objections, wishes and feelings of that person; and the need for authorisation from an ‘approved body’) have therefore been evaded.
Normally such research for the mentally ill would have to be approved by an NHS Research Ethical Committee (‘REC’) to ensure that all of the conditions for such research are fulfilled. Instead, such research is to be dealt with under the normal licence applications for the HFEA.
We consider it to be highly unethical to use vulnerable children and the mentally ill at this experimental stage of research, which is also unnecessary as more ethical alternatives are available. The UK has already breached the European Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine by creating embryos for research. To use children’s human cells not just to create embryos, but to create animal-human hybrids for research purposes, is an outrageous abuse of power. Children and the mentally ill need more—not less—protection from this type of research.
The amendment came below the heading ‘minor and consequential amendments’ and was agreed to without even a debate taking place—see link: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmpublic/human/080612/pm/80612s03.htm.
Link to amendment 114: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmbills/070/amend/pb0701006m.152-158.html.
Embryonic v. Adult Stem Cells
During the passage of this Bill those liberalisers wanted the HFEA to extend the licensing provisions to include embryonic stem cells for actual patient therapy—to treat diseases as opposed to just using them for research. The Government refused this. However the Public Bill Committee have approved provisions that will effectively allow licences to be granted for the use of embryonic stem cells in activities intended for human application, that is, for treatment.
The Pattison report, which looked at a 10-year vision for UK stem cell research in 2005 and whose recommendations were welcomed by the Government stated that:
If embryonic stem cells were to be introduced directly into patients, they would be likely to form a type of tumour known as a teratoma, which might exhibit malignant potential. … Even a small number of contaminating embryonic stem cells could represent a significant hazard to a patient. …By contrast, the threat of tumour formation from transplantation of adult stem cells is not thought to be significant, based on evidence from over 40 years of bone marrow transplantation. [Our emphasis].
See: http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/uksci/uksci-reportnov05.pdf.
Please raise all of these issues with your MP as a matter of urgency and ask for these matters to be dealt with on a free vote basis as issues of conscience at Report Stage.
Report Stage
The amendments that may be debated and/or voted on at this stage include the following:
The facilitation of fast track adoption for male homosexual partners, so that babies can be adopted from surrogate mothers after just 6 months.
A requirement that donor-conceived people should be told about their donor conception by the time they are 16. This is the legal age at which marriage is possible, and the requirement is to prevent such people from marrying their half-siblings by mistake.
An amendment to prevent human babies being produced by cloning due to the current ‘human reproductive’ and ‘germ line engineering’ loopholes in the legislation.
An amendment requiring scientists to show that there are no reasonably practicable alternatives to using embryos for research.
An amendment supporting the creation of a National Bioethics Commission outside Parliament (but against a Joint Committee within Parliament).
Please write to your MP asking them to vote against fast-track adoption of babies by homosexual partners and the creation of a Joint Bioethics Committee within Parliament and in favour of the other amendments listed above.
