In vitro fertilisation is here to stay, but the destruction of early human embryos should not form part of Irish practice, argues Martin Clynes.
Advances in our understanding of life processes have opened up many new possibilities for improving human welfare, not least in treatment of infertility using procedures such as in vitro fertilisation (IVF). The Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction (CAHR), set up to advise on regulation/legislation in this area, held a public conference on February 6th, the subject of responses in this newspaper from Father Kevin Doran (February 19th) and Dr Fergal O'Ferrall (February 26th).
Concerns were expressed at the conference and by Dr O'Ferrall that there may be a threat to the availability of IVF and related procedures in Ireland. But the reality is that IVF is now (quite rightly) part of mainstream treatment for infertility, and is here to stay. Can anyone honestly envisage any of the political parties in Dáil Éireann supporting its prohibition?
A real issue for debate, however, is how IVF is to be practised and regulated in Ireland.
IVF involves isolating ova and sperm from the parents, and allowing fertilisation to occur in controlled laboratory conditions. The number of ova used determines the number of embryos brought into existence. The practice in countries such as the UK is to fertilise 10-12 ova, of which usually only three are implanted. The rest are frozen for future use. If they are not required at a later date by the parents, they are either destroyed or used for research.
Should the UK be the headline for Irish legislation? That depends on your view of the early embryo.
The CAHR conference was dominated by speakers who support the UK guidelines, which allow disposal of or experimentation on embryos up to 14 days post-fertilisation. This is often put forward as the "scientific" view generally accepted by "experts". Biological events such as implantation, primitive streak formation and brain-stem development are cited as important developmental events associated with increased rights to recognition of "personhood".
There is no scientific basis for such associations, however. Biologically, the primary and fundamental event in the start of human life is the coming together of the full 46-chromosome DNA complement in the fertilised egg. There is no scientific reason to define any later event as critical in the formation of a new person.
Despite assertions at the conference, IVF does not at all need to involve embryo destruction, for three reasons. First, only the number of ova needed for implantation could be fertilised. If embryos are to be frozen, regulations can ensure use by parents or availability for adoption, but not destruction. And finally, technology for freezing ova is improving, reducing the need for freezing embryos for later use.
Irish legislation should encourage IVF along these lines, rather than following the UK model.
One conference speaker asserted that there is no such thing as universal human rights, and that rights are only whatever may be defined in law. The history of the 20th century should make us very worried about adopting this mentality. History is littered with millions of human lives destroyed by definition of certain groups of human beings as sub-human or not deserving of full human rights.
History also demonstrates how the process of dehumanisation of groups is preceded by development of a vocabulary which diminishes the group targeted. One of the conference speakers said he found difficulty in attributing rights to pre-implantation embryos, which he referred to as "genetic property". They are no such thing. Children are not the property of their parents - they are individuals in their own right.
DNA, eggs or sperm might possibly come under the heading of "genetic property" - individual human beings, at whatever stage of development, should never be so described. Such a description is the first step on the road to considering them as things rather than people.
Two important byproducts of IVF are human stem-cell technology and therapeutic cloning. Stem cells are derived from surplus IVF embryos and involve their destruction. They may have the potential to develop into many types of tissue and have been heralded as potential cures for many diseases. Excessive claims are being made, however, in the absence of evidence, that stem-cell research will cure many currently incurable diseases.
The hopes and fears of patients are, it seems to me, being exploited. Even if such cures were forthcoming, I don't believe the end would justify this means; other avenues of research, including work with adult human and animal stem cells, should be explored instead.
"Therapeutic cloning", now legal in the UK, is an apparently civilised term for a very uncivilised idea. It means essentially using cloning technology to bring into existence your identical twin, in order to provide you with spare parts. The unfortunate twin, however, is disposed of in the process. I suggest that destructive research on embryos, therapeutic cloning and work with embryonic human stem cells derived from embryo destruction are not consistent with basic human rights and should not be allowed by law in Ireland.
Sometimes the argument against destruction of early human embryos is presented as a religious one. The opposite may be true. If there is a just God and an afterlife, perhaps it all turns out all right in the end. But, for the atheist, if there is nothing after death, we have destroyed all possibilities for these individuals - surely a bleak and unacceptable scenario.
There will be significant pressure, and it would be very convenient - for the legislature, for the medical profession, for scientists, for industry - to decide that early embryos have no rights. But it would be a betrayal of basic human rights. If human lives are violated to facilitate technology, even medical technology, then science and technology have lost their fundamental purpose and integrity.
I hope that the CAHR and the Minister, Mr Martin, will have the courage to draft legislation which gives Irish patients access to new treatments, but without allowing violence to individual citizens at the most vulnerable point in their existence.
Martin Clynes is professor of biotechnology in Dublin City University.