---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

I do not intend to make a lengthy speech on this very difficult issue, which bristles with scientific, medical, ethical and social problems, not all of them easy of solution. Speaking entirely personally, I have a great deal of sympathy with the view expressed by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. The idea of creating a so-called saviour sibling to produce an individual who could then be used as a source of human organs—such as liver or kidneys—fills me with considerable concern. Having said that, speaking now as an honorary fellow of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, I am fully aware that a number of serious, life-threatening disorders—I prefer the term ““life-threatening”” to ““serious””, because it is crucial that something of this nature could be used only for the amelioration of conditions that are life threatening— which are genetically determined and occur in infants, are progressive and utterly devastating in their effects. One such is the X-linked disorder called adrenoleucodystrophy, which produces progressive paralysis, fits and a whole lot of other things in young infants. There is evidence to suggest that if that disease exists in a family and is diagnosed early, it is possible—in that condition and in some of the other metabolic and storage disorders of young infants, if we could obtain immunologically compatible bone marrow and transplant it—significantly to ameliorate the condition. In certain instances, there are other conditions in which that could produce a cure. For that reason, I certainly agree with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that bone marrow must remain covered by the clause. I entirely understand why he wants to remove the words ““other tissue””, but let me postulate something for the future. My personal interest is in research into muscle disease. A number of genetically determined muscular dystrophies exist that are the rare congenital dystrophies present from birth which are the result of abnormal genes. Muscle is a regenerative tissue; it has an enormous ability to regenerate. It is perhaps theoretically possible that one could remove with a needle a small amount of muscle from an individual, culture it and derive from it stem cells that could be used in treatment of the human disease. I am talking purely hypothetically, but I think that to have the term ““other tissue”” ruled out completely might in the ultimate be very restrictive. The noble Earl himself used the term ““regenerative tissue””. That may be a satisfactory alternative. I agree with the noble Earl and with my noble friend Lord Alton about the concern expressed around the Committee about the creation of a sibling as a source for organ donation.