A Critique of Part 4 of the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill - Essay Example

A Critique of Part 4 of the Human Tissue and Embryos Bill In order to alleviate the chaos created by reproductive technologies, the government introduced the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which endeavoured to apply the traditional conception of parenthood to sophisticated reproductive avenues. However, a few questions regarding parenthood remain unanswered and some of these are whether to consider a person to be a father if that person dies much before the embryo is created or before the child is born. Another question is regarding the person to be considered the legal father when a clinic mistakenly fertilizes the women’s egg with the sperm of some male person other than the husband of that woman, when a couple approaches it in order to use their own gametes for conceiving a child (Sheldon & Sally, 2005). The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 proved to be ineffective in preventing illegal trade in human embryos. For instance, Leeds General Hospital paid £1,500 to women who agreed to participate in an IVF research trial to harvest their eggs. There were reported cases of procuring nearly seventy ova in one cycle from women in the US, which resulted in their death. There are lacunae in the Act of 1990 which allows the trading of eggs that are not meant for fertilisation, moreover, the extraction of eggs imperils the health of women (Dickenson, Mar2004). In order to comply with the requirements of the European Tissue Directive and consequent to the apprehensions of the citizens of the UK regarding the utilization of human tissue and the various technologies associated with reproduction, the UK Government has conceded that primary legislation and its regulation are essential. Further, the extant law has to be modified in order to cope up with the technological changes and new discoveries, a changing public perception and retain public confidence (Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, 2006). Steps are underway to restructure the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990 of the HFE Act in a manner that would find societal acceptance. Nevertheless, the Government in disinclined to modify issues like the proscription of human reproductive cloning, discontinuance of donor anonymity and the production and utilization of embryos for research purposes. The HFE Act is put into effect by the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority or HFEA, which monitors and controls every facility that indulge in IVF, donor insemination or the storage of eggs, sperm or embryos. Moreover, it is the regulatory authority for all human embryo research conducted in the UK and it is illegal to conduct such research without the express permission of this authority. In addition, the HFE Act permits the extension of the reasons for conducting such research in concurrence with Parliament. The objective of such extension is to improve understanding of human diseases and their cure by treatment that is cell based (Wallace, October 2005). There had been a thorough examination of the act that controls reproductive technologies, which was carried out jointly by the government of the UK and the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority or HFEA in the year 2005. The HFEA identified several aspects of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which address the difficulties and challenges in the implementation of the system that regulates fertility treatment and embryo research. Some of the recommendations made by the HFEA are first; there should be a legal definition of the term embryo. Second, the powers of HFEA should be enhanced in order to promote clinical trials and issue notices to institutions that violate the statute. Third, the present practice of obtaining written consent for using embryos is to be continued. Fourth, the provision of maximum storage periods is to be continued (Gertz, Harmon, Laurie, & Pradella, Jun2006). In R v Secretary of State for Health, the House of Lords interpreted the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The appellant had argued that embryos made through the process of cell nuclear replacement do not come under the ambit of the legal definition of the term embryo as per section 1(1)(a) of Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. The process that is involved in cell nuclear replacement is one of genetic manipulation and in this process; the nucleus taken from an adult cell is placed into an enucleated oocyte or egg cell. This results in the development of an organism, which is genetically identical to the donor. In the appellate court the contention by the appellant’s plea that an organism created by cloning technology could be construed to be an embryo as per the definition provided in section 1 of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act 1990, was allowed. This decision was upheld by the House of Lords (R (On the application of Quintavalle) v. Secretary of State for Health). The government of the UK passed the legislation named the Human Fertilisation (Research Purposes) Regulations in 2001. This legislation set out the research purposes for which human embryos could be used and these purposes were in addition to those listed in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act of 1990. Sociologist bodies argued that embryo research involving early embryos could be ignored for ethical purposes, because embryos in the early stages of development could not be considered to be humans due to the fact that they did not have the required vital qualities to be considered as humans. In order to obtain a moral status, there should be some vital qualities like the capacity to think, act and communicate besides having the capacity to feel pain. This has become the subject matter of public debates on this subject (Deckers, Jun2005). However, the fact remains that the early embryo is a potential human being. The early embryo has the potentiality to become a human with a moral status. Because of this argument, embryos have a moral status and they should be given sufficient value over non – human beings. Embryos are independent and autonomously operating organisms that have a teleological orientation. Moreover, embryos have the capacity to become developed humans right from the beginning of fertilisation. Thus the existing UK legislation, which promotes embryo research, may not be morally acceptable and it subverts egalitarianism through discrimination against early embryos (Deckers, Jun2005). Diane Blood gave birth to a second child after being fertilized with her deceased spouse’s sperm. According to statute (section 28 of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act, 1990), this child was deemed to be fatherless and illegitimate (R v. HFEA Ex – Parte Diane Bloodl, 1999). This was patently unjust and hence new legislation was proposed that received Royal Assent in 2003 (Human Fertilization and Embryology Act (deceased fathers act) , 2003 ). This new act amends the law in such a manner that the name of a deceased person, who gives a written assent for his sperm to be used after his demise, can be used as the father of children born posthumously (Lyon & Goddard, August 2003). Human reproductive technology is a complex and controversial practice. Moreover, making use of these reproductive technologies results in the emergence of many issues that create social, legal and ethical dilemmas and in addition there is a vast divergence in the views and opinions that are subscribed to by the public. Furthermore, there are social barriers and limitations which control these views. In order to address these social and ethical paradigms, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 attempts to create a framework that would be acceptable to society (Woodward, Norton, & Neuberg, Sep2004). Most couples would not prefer to donate their embryos to strangers. Hence the abundant availability of frozen embryos is not a distinct possibility. The medical profession and society have to consider the interests of the infertile couple as well as the interests of the newborn child. This offers an excellent method of sorting out the differences that exist between the ethical and legal aspects of gamete and embryo donations (Woodward, Norton, & Neuberg, Sep2004). People who born of a donor embryo would aspire to know about their genetic origins and this aspect has also to considered and honoured as a human right issue. Moreover, such a desire to acquire knowledge about their genetic origin has to be seen in the light of the right to information or access to information (Woodward, Norton, & Neuberg, Sep2004). The Warnock committee was constituted in order to study the latest developments in medicine and science in the context of human fertilization and embryology, the protective measures that had to be adopted and to make suitable recommendations in this regard. On the whole this report gave a significant amount of importance to the moral and social objections that had been raised against surrogacy in 1984. Moreover, this committee unanimously accepted that surrogacy for convenience alone was unacceptable (Warnock Report, 1984). Barnes Warnock chaired the Warnock Committee, which was formed in 1982. One of its goals was to examine the ethicality of surrogacy. The government accepted some of the recommendations of this report and incorporated them in the Surrogacy act (Surrogacy Arrangemts Act , 1985). The first case to be entertained in court in respect of surrogacy was in 1978. In this case the appellate court judge upheld the lower court’s decision that refused to grant the child’s custody to its father and allowed its surrogate mother to retain custody (A v. C, 1985). In the Baby Cotton case a US surrogacy agency entered into a commercial agreement, whereby both the surrogate mother as well this agency were to receive a commission from a couple desiring a child. After the child’s birth the local authority attempted to make the child a ward of the court, however, the court handed over the custody of the child to that couple (Re C (A Minor) (Wardship: Surrogacy), 1985). At present there are a number of innovative applications of the modern technologies associated with reproduction and some of these are AID, in vitro fertilization—IVF, embryo transfer and embryo freezing. However, surrogate motherhood gives rise to a host of ethical and legal issues that have a far-reaching consequence. It has been subjected to several discussions and arguments in the courts and legislatures. Furthermore, surrogacy has been taken cognizance of by a number of Commissions and Inquiries. References A v. C, FLR 445 (1985). Deckers, J. (Jun2005). Why Current Uk Legislation On Embryo Research Is Immoral. How The Argument From Lack Of Qualities And The Argument From Potentiality Have Been Applied And Why They Should Be Rejected. Bioethics , Vol. 19 Issue 3, p251-271, 21p. Dickenson, D. (Mar2004). ETHICS WATCH. Nature Reviews Genetics , Vol. 5 Issue 3, p167-167, 1p, 1c; DOI: 10.1038/nrg1303; (AN 12285301). Gertz, R., Harmon, S., Laurie, G., & Pradella, G. (Jun2006). Developments in Medical Law in the United Kingdom in 2005 and 2006. European Journal of Health Law , Vol. 13 Issue 2, p143-158, 16p; DOI: 10.1163/157180906777831172; (AN 21507778). Human Fertilization and Embryology Act (deceased fathers act) . (2003 ). UK. Lyon, C. M., & Goddard, J. (August 2003). Editorial. Journal of Social Welfare and Family Law , Vol. 25, Iss. 3, P. iii. R (On the application of Quintavalle) v. Secretary of State for Health, (2003) UKHL 13. R v. HFEA Ex – Parte Diane Bloodl, Fam 151 (Februrary 6, 1999). Re C (A Minor) (Wardship: Surrogacy), FLR 846 (1985). Review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. (2006, December). Retrieved August 18, 2007, from Department of Health: http://www.dh.gov.uk/prod_consum_dh/groups/dh_digitalassets/@dh/@en/documents/digitalasset/dh_073065.pdf section 28 of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Act. ( 1990). Sheldon, & Sally. (2005). Reproductive technologies and the legal determination of fatherhood. Feminist Legal Studies , Vol. 13 Issue 3, p349-362, 14p; DOI: 10.1007/s10691-005-9008-4; (AN 19219296). Surrogacy Arrangemts Act . (1985). Wallace, C. (October 2005). Fertilization Law in the 21st century. Biologist , Vol. 52 Issue 5, p262. Warnock Report. (1984). Woodward, B. J., Norton, W. J., & Neuberg, R. (Sep2004). Ethics, social, legal, counselling Case report: grandmother, mother and another - an intergenerational surrogacy using anonymous donated embryos. Reproductive BioMedicine Online , Vol. 9 Issue 3, p26. Read More