---

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

My Lords, I will add one short thought. I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady O’Cathain, about the seriousness of trying to create a child as a potential organ bank for an older brother or sister. Quite simply, one has to consider the power of the popular press. In any particular case, the popular press is likely to support the idea of saving a child who has some defect that might be resolved by the presence of a saviour sibling. However, I do not think that the popular press will appreciate the way in which the door has been opened to what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Winchester said was the danger of moving towards the commodification of the individual. I can think of no better instance in this Bill than this provision. If we allow this, we treat the second child essentially as a commodity to be used and exploited by the first child or the first child’s parents. The parents are almost certain, understandably, to be overwhelmingly concerned about rescuing their child. The Chinese have a saying: ““After the first child, there is no other””. Of course, that is not quite true, but one understands what is said about the emotional strength of a first child. The second child is therefore bound to be treated as, in a sense, ancillary—as not having full human rights, as the noble Lord, Lord Patten, says. That will lead on to the acceptance of the purchase of organs, which already happens all over the world, for the purpose of curing oneself or one’s family. The devil take the hindmost when it comes to the child who becomes the unwilling donor of an organ, which is already to be seen all over Asia and Africa, with people buying up organs. A line has to be set. That line has to respect the sacramental nature of the human being who is being asked to make this terrible sacrifice. In the case of the saviour sibling, that child will be under moral pressure to produce elements for his brother or sister. He or she will certainly not be able to make that decision in an independent way—in a selfish way, if you like—because of the nature of the pressures. I simply ask the House to consider for one moment what would be made in the Sun, the Daily Express, or the Daily Mail of a case where it looked as if a child could be saved by the birth of a tissue-similar brother or sister. The pressures would be huge to allow that. It is the responsibility of the Government to draw a line and say that we will not accept the commodification of children. I refer back to what the right reverend Prelate said earlier in this debate.