---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

Before the right reverend Prelate sits down, can he help me? I am now confused between the concept of instrumentality on the one hand and the issue of consent on the other. I gather from the right reverend Prelate that he is opposed to a second child being conceived through IVF in such a way through screening that that second infant is known to be compatible and therefore in a position to donate an organ or whatever. The right relevant Prelate has said that however much loved the child may be by its parent and however much that parent might have wanted a second child in any case, nonetheless, turning that child instrumentally into a means to an end is somehow degrading to human dignity. There is a second issue of consent. What would be the right reverend Prelate’s advice to us were that first child to become ill after that second child was born and it so happened that there was a fortuitous tissue match and that that first child would survive only if the one year-old’s or the two year-old's kidney was removed without that small child being able to give consent to save the life of the first? Does the right reverend Prelate think that both those circumstances are identical? Does he think there is less instrumentality about the second because it is about chance?