Skip to main content

Proceeding contribution from Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Labour) in the House of Lords on Monday, 21 January 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL].


Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL]

moved Amendment No. 31: 31: Schedule 2, page 56, line 8, at end insert— ““(4) In sub-paragraph (1)(d) the reference to ““other tissue”” of the resulting child does not include a reference to any whole organ of the child.”” The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft Bill provides for embryo testing to be carried out for the purposes of determining tissue type where there is a sick older sibling who could be treated with cord blood stem cells, bone marrow or other tissue of any resulting child. Concerns were raised in Committee that ““other tissue”” could include whole organs—for example, kidneys—and that the Bill could permit embryo testing for tissue type where there was an intention that any resulting child could be used as an organ donor for their older sibling. This was not in fact the intention of the use of ““other tissue””. This term was used to ensure, for example, that the potential use of cells of the umbilical cord rather than the cord blood could be considered. The main use of this technology would be when someone suffers from a life-threatening blood condition which could be treated by cells of the cord blood or bone marrow where there are no compatible donors on the worldwide bone marrow register or in the family. In addition, in the future other types of regenerative tissue could be used for treatment, perhaps where a small number of cells could be removed from a donor for culture. In previous discussions this has been referred to as regenerative tissue, as the body could compensate for the loss of a small amount of cells without lasting harm to the donor. The amendment would continue to allow for tissue typing in these circumstances, subject to a licence by the regulatory authority. Taking into account the concerns expressed in Committee, this amendment limits ““other tissue”” by clarifying that the term would not include any whole organ of the resulting child. The result is that it will now not be possible to license embryo testing for tissue type where the intention is an organ transplant for the older sibling. The use of organs from children in transplantation is governed by the Human Tissue Act, or in Scotland the Human Tissue (Scotland) Act. The Bill does not change this position. The amendment still allows embryo testing where the intention would be to treat the older sibling with other types of tissue from any resulting child, such as bone marrow, cord blood or, as discussed in Committee, types of tissue other than whole organs. I am grateful to all noble Lords for their useful and informative comments on this issue. The Government have listened and have brought forward this amendment in response. I beg to move.


Secondary information

Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
698 c21-2 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamber
Subjects
Disability Children Civil partnerships Codes of practice Diagnosis Fertility Homosexuality Human rights Human embryo experiments Diseases Donors Genetics Ethics IVF Discrimination Fathers Parents Lone parents 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