Madam, - An Irish court is entrusted with deciding the future fate and ownership of frozen embryos after their parents' separation, and the Government is explaining why it has stood apart from the blocking minority in the EU that stood up against embryo-wasting res-earch. In marked contrast to other EU member-states, there has been neither a public nor a Dáil debate in which the legitimacy of such decisions, which are central for a country's self-understanding, could be judged.
There are a number of questions which need to be debated among citizens and their representatives, not only in newspaper columns, but in a structured process of democratic opinion- and will-formation. These fall under three headings.
1. Does the State have a duty to protect all its present and future citizens through the legislation it puts in place, or is it a matter of adult citizens' private interests? For example, does a future child have the right to know his or her genetic parents, or will the secrecy that shrouded the adoption process in the past be tolerated or even made law in assisted reproduction? Does State support for pre-implantation genetic diagnosis (PID), which is banned in most EU states usher in a new age of quality control and selection to replace the previous understanding of parenthood as unconditional acceptance of one's child? How does PID relate to anti-discrimination law?
2. The new Irish so-called "middle path" in the EU has been explained, with commendable frankness, as helping to advance the entire science investment package. At least the argument that embryonic stem cell research will provide more cures than adult stem cells has been dropped. But Dáil and European Parliament representatives should be accountable to citizens on whether they agree that business interests should be allowed to trump their moral principles and their Constitutions.
3. Is it a proper interpretation of subsidiarity to help some states carry out research that is deemed unethical in this and other countries, instead of having their own taxpayers finance it? From 2012 at the latest, Irish taxpayers will be net contributors to the EU budget. The Dutch, Norwegian and Italian governments were not afraid of a "dangerous precedent" when they asserted their sovereignty in taking a case against the EU's patenting directive because of their conviction that one cannot patent life.
Subsidiarity clearly does not cancel moral convictions and moral decisions - indeed, it provides space for them. Ireland can still decide only to allow pronuclear freezing instead of embryo freezing with all its subsequent "surplus" dilemmas; or it can join those member-states which consider it an attack on human dignity and as adding insult to injury when embryos which are tragically no longer a parental project are expediently converted into raw material for research interests. - Yours, etc,
Prof MAUREEN JUNKER-KENNY, School of Religions and Theology, Trinity College, Dublin 2.