Proceeding contribution from Nadine Dorries (Conservative) in the House of Commons on Wednesday, 22 October 2008. It occurred during Debate on bill on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords].
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
I rise to support new clause 24 and amendment No. 50. In my opinion, the issues that they deal with are serious, sinister and ultimately ridiculous. Members of the general public listening to this debate might find it difficult to understand what we are discussing, and I should like to begin by making it clear which issue the new clause and amendment are trying to resolve. If the Bill as it stands is passed, it will allow the insemination of human gametes into an animal—that is, the insemination of human sperm into an animal. I find it difficult, as many members of the public doubtless will, to understand why the Bill is allowing this to take place, as it would be incredibly simple for a clause to be inserted prohibiting this, as was said. The hon. Member for Southport (Dr. Pugh) described how the Bill completely fails to prohibit the placing of human gametes in an animal, and has questioned why we cannot address this issue. Given that the Bill has been put together so inefficiently, perhaps we should be thankful that the Government have been alert enough to prohibit the insertion of an admixed embryo into an animal, and the placement of non-human gametes in a woman. What have the Government been playing at, given that this loophole was pointed out to them a long time ago? What would it take for them to make this amendment? Why do we need to deal with an issue so basic, and which has been pointed out so frequently to the Government? Of all the experimental possibilities debated during consideration of the Bill, surely none is quite as utterly repulsive as seeking to inseminate animals with human sperm. Yet despite all the Government's fervent assurances about safeguards and regulations, this procedure remains entirely untouched by the Bill's prohibitions. The Department of Health has argued that the insemination of animals with human sperm could never lead to a viable foetus. How can it know? Surely the nature of science and scientists is that they are incredibly experimental and inquisitive and constantly attempting to push back the barriers. How do we know what this would lead to in one, five or 10 years' time?
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 481 c355-6
- Session
- 2007-08
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Commons chamber
- Subjects
- Civil partnerships Clones Animals Abortion Congenital abnormalities Fertility Licensing Human embryo experiments Diseases Donors Genetics Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority Ethics IVF Fathers Medical treatments Northern Ireland Parents Mental capacity Screening Research Surrogacy 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
- 2023-12-16 00:28:05 +0000
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506436
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506436
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_506436