Practical Ethics

Reproductive science: is there something we're missing?

Thirty years after the first test-tube baby, Nature asks various experts for their views on what the next thirty years of reproductive medicine will bring. Some of the more startling predictions are:

• No more infertility, with both children and 100-year-olds able to have children
• Embryos created from stem cells, increasing the ease of embryo research and genetic engineering of children
• … with the resulting greater availability of embryos making it easier to create cloned humans
• Artificial wombs, enabling babies to develop outside the mother’s body
• … which, some worry, could become compulsory as an alternative to abortion, or to avoid premature birth or fetal alcohol syndrome
• ‘Genetic cassettes’ implanted in embryos to counteract the effects of inherited diseases
• Increase in litigation following evidence that IVF babies may later suffer adverse effects from the environment in which they were grown as embryos

What’s wrong with the hermaphrodite world?

Making headlines last week, Melbourne bioethicist Rob Sparrow argued that in order to create the best future for their children, parents should select only girl children or hermaphrodites. He imagined a  “post-sex” world in which males are no longer conceived, and women use frozen sperm, or artificial gametes to reproduce.

Discrimination and infertility treatment

It has been reported in the newspapers today that in many parts of the country smokers have been refused access to in-vitro-fertilisation treatment. This appears to be contrary to the national evidence-based guidelines for fertility treatment. Is this unfair?

Abortion for Fetal Abnormality?

Abortion remains a crime for most Australians. Laws are inconsistent between states. In contrast, long ago the UK Abortion Act 1967 repealed and replaced its antiquated legal statutes on which much of Australian abortion law is still based.

The government in the state of Victoria asked the Law Reform Commission to provide legislative options to decriminalize abortion. Law reform is expected later this year.

Cloning and animal exploitation

The Daily Mail reports this morning that 8 clone-offspring cows have been born in the UK. Also today, the first survey of public opinion on ‘clone farming’ has been released indicating significant unease and opposition to the idea of meat products or milk from cloned sources.

There are strict prohibitions on reproductive cloning for humans in most countries (for example, the recently debated HFEA bill in the UK, and the Human reproductive Cloning Act 2001). However there are few, if any, constraints on the cloning of animals. Is this the start of a new era of animal exploitation?

Legal Abortion Time-Limits: Arbitrary Limits Harm Women

By Dr. Lachlan de Crespigny, Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne

The vote by the British parliament to keep the upper legal limit on abortion at 24 weeks was headline news around the world. An article in The Economist (1) considers that the British were spared America's abortion wars partly because Britain is less religious than America, but also because abortion laws are made in Parliament, where shades of grey can be debated, not in the courts, where black or white usually prevails.

Interestingly much of the debate was about ‘viability’ - the minimum gestational age at which a newborn is said to be capable of surviving with modern intensive care facilities. This is a simple across-the-board week count. But the survival rate of newborns also depends on many other factors, including where they are born (2, 3), fetal health including the presence or absence of an abnormality (which remains lawful where the child will be ‘seriously handicapped’), plus the condition of the newborn. While around half or so of 24 week newborns in Britain may survive, many or most of the abortions at around that gestation are of problem, or unhealthy, pregnancies.

HFEA and Regulating Reproduction:Triumph for Rationality and Victory for Secular Ethics

MPs voted on Tuesday on two of the most controversial issues surrounding reproduction- the provision of IVF treatment, and the availability of legal abortion. Under the new laws, IVF clinics will no longer have a legal requirement to consider the need for a father, but will instead be asked to ensure provision of 'supportive parenting', removing any barrier to single women and lesbian couples conceiving through the treatment. In a separate amendment, MPs were asked to consider the legal time limit on abortion, which currently stands at 24 weeks. Given the option to reduce this limit to 22, 20 or even just 12 weeks, MPs voted by a comfortable majority to stick with the status quo. 

The UK is now at the forefront of rational reform to legislation governing reproduction and research. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill has now approved the creation of human admixed embryos, with important implications for scientific advance.

Blog on Admixed Embryos
Savulescu, J., The Case for Creating Human -Non Human Cell Lines, Bioethics Forum
Human Enhancement papers, media and other resources for free download

It has also reformed the regulation of reproduction in a thoroughly sensible manner.

Saviour Siblings Saved!

Two attempts to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill’s provision to allow ‘saviour siblings’ failed in the House of Commons yesterday. The first attempt was to block the practice and failed 342 to 163. The second attempt was to limit the provision to life-threatening cases. It was defeated 318 to 149. As it stands the Bill allows embryo testing and hence selection for ‘saviour siblings’ provided that “there is a significant risk that a person [the sibling ‘to be saved’] … will have or develop a serious physical or mental disability, serious illness or any other serious medical condition.”

Viability and the abortion debate - what really matters?

MPs in the House of Commons will debate tomorrow whether the cut-off for legal abortions in the UK should be reduced. Currently abortions are permitted up to the 24th week of a pregnancy, and some MPs have argued that this should be reduced to 20 weeks or below. Advocates and opponents of the change have pointed to scientific evidence about the viability of infants born extremely prematurely at 22, 23 and 24 weeks. They seem to believe that if we can answer the scientific question of whether such infants are viable, that will resolve the question about whether or not abortion is permissible at that stage.
That might be the case if there were a consensus on what viability means, and why it is important in questions about abortion time-limits. But, as this article will highlight, there is no such consensus, and it is not straightforward why viability should matter. So far in this public debate there has been little or no mention of the important questions – what is viability, and why is it important in abortion law?

Humane Evolution

Professor John Harris wonders Who’s afraid of a synthetic human? in the Times. He argues we should support the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill because it will help us develop effective therapies and enhance ourselves. Science is about bettering our lot, after all. In particular, he says, synthetic biology may help us avoid going extinct due to our vulnerabilities and instead enable us to choose (or become) our successors as a species.

Many people become confused by the possibility of a posthuman future. The traditional view of the future is a stark one: either humanity extinct, or humans roughly as they are today. The posthuman options would be that we either change ourselves so radically that the resulting species is so  fundamentally different from humanity that we would regard it as something entirely new, or that we create some kind of independent beings that continue our culture even as traditional humanity retires from the forefront (hopefully as proud parents of the new beings). The range of possible options within these scenarios is endless, inviting equally endless and loud speculation. That tends to distract from the key message of Harris’ essay: we are leaving the realm of natural evolution and entering what he calls a realm of enhancement evolution.