ÎçÒ¹¸£Àû1000¼¯ºÏ

The furore in the British media over a 59-year old woman who gave birth
to twins had scarcely begun to die down last week when an even more emotional
storm broke over the use of IVF. At issue this time is whether it would
be ethical to use eggs from an aborted fetus to provide an infertile woman
with a chance to have a child.

The technique has not actually been tested in humans and is so fraught
with difficulties that years of research will be needed to find out whether
it can ever be used (see This Week). But the possibility was seized on by
the media after the ethics committee of the British Medical Association
was reported to be willing to approve the technique in principle. Once the
debate began, the focus quickly shifted to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology
Authority. It brought forward publication of its report, Donated Ovarian
Tissue in Embryo Research & Assisted Conception.

Strangely, both the report itself and much of the media coverage focused
on the ‘unpleasantness’ of using eggs from an aborted fetus. The Independent
on Sunday dubbed it the ‘Yuk Factor’. The HFEA report had the same reason
for opposing the use of fetuses, albeit in less emotive language: ‘The public
. . . may feel an instinctive repugnance to the use of ovarian tissue from
these sources for research or fertility treatment.’ After presenting the
case, the HFEA asked the public to write in with answers to a simple set
of prepared questions and assured the media that the opinion will play a
large part in its decision on use of the technique.

That is all very well, but are ethical issues really to be decided by
what is little more than an opinion poll? And are they to be debated on
the grounds of whether people feel an ‘instinctive repugnance’ towards them?
A great many people still feel an ‘instinctive repugnance’ towards homosexual
intercourse but the rights of individuals who form minority groups or who
have special needs cannot be decided by the simple preferences of the majority.

Perhaps we should listen to one of those individuals who has special
needs – a woman seeking IVF who talked to New Scientist. Remember that
egg donors are in short supply and that a woman may wait years for what
may be her last chance to bear a child. Remember also that no use can be
made of a fetus without permission from its mother. ‘If someone found they
had to have an abortion and gave me permission to use eggs from their fetus,
I would see it as an act of love. Someone has had to give up a life and
they have given it to me. It’s not as though someone has created a Frankenstein’s
monster in a test tube – they have given the best gift there is.’

In judging this essentially private act of giving and receiving there
is no room for public opinion to be confused with ethics. Perhaps some of
the senior Anglican clergymen who spoke out against the use of fetal eggs
should also listen to this woman. They argue that a child so conceived would
have an aborted fetus as a mother and thus suffer trauma in later life.
This is nonsense. The child would have a real mother – the one who gave
it birth. And likely enough a loving one, given the effort required to have
that child.

It is sad when ethics committees turn away from the responsibility of
helping ordinary people think clearly about moral issues. It is even sadder
when churchmen see genetic links as more important than natural affection.