Proceeding contribution from Lord Sutherland of Houndwood (Crossbench) in the House of Lords on Tuesday, 15 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL].
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]
My Lords, the amendment before us is one that will close a door to certain forms of research. If we are to do that, we must take note of two or three different points. The first is that this is a well regulated door already and in the Bill there is additional regulation. I was very grateful to my noble and learned friend Lord Mackay of Clashfern for spelling out the details of which doors were still open and which were not. This is a well regulated door and we would have to have very good reason to close it. I can think of two possible reasons. My concern in this debate is that they have been intertwined sometimes in unhelpful ways. One reason is ethical, based on a strong metaphysical or theological foundation. I have not heard views expressed and arguments put forward that would persuade me to change my own metaphysical and theological beliefs in a way that would lead me to support this. Such arguments there may well be but I have not heard them put forward today. The other possible reason is that we do not think that the kind of research which will be allowed if this door is opened will be productive. On that—and I speak as many others have done as a non-scientist—I have to defer to the opinion of those whom I respect and whom their colleagues respect. We have all of us, I am quite sure, had circulation of a note representing the major scientific institutions with an interest in this area. They are quite clear about the possibilities and again I have not heard arguments which will overthrow the conviction they have shown that the weight of opinion is that this door is worth keeping open. Are we trying to predict as a group of largely non-scientists whether either embryonic or adult stem cell research will be the most successful? I do not think most of us are in a position to do that. Having said that, if we were to shut this door, we would be shutting a door of real possibility, according to the views of many of my scientific colleagues here and elsewhere. The last point I will make is that public opinion is very important but it is not and cannot be the final way of resolving some of these questions. Consider, for example, the debates over the death penalty and what public opinion might have done in that respect. So I stand with those who do not accept the amendment.
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 697 c1219-20
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Animals Congenital abnormalities Fertility Licensing Human embryo experiments Diseases Genetics Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Ethics IVF Research Stem cells Human-animal hybrid embryos
- Legislation
- Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill (HL) 2007-08
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2023-12-15 23:44:03 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_434367
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_434367
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_434367