Charles Foster reflects on the disappointing nature of the debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill
In last week's debate on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill there was much sound and much fury. What does it signify?
The outcomes (no to a reduction in the 24-week limit for “social abortions”; yes to animal-human hybrid embryos; yes to 'true hybrids' created by fusion of an animal gamete and a human gamete; yes to saviour siblings; and no to a requirement to consider the need for a father when considering IVF) have been headline news. The standard of debate in the broadsheets has been high. There is no point in reiterating the arguments for and against each issue. Most thinking people will have felt either happy or sad when they heard the result of each of the votes. Indifference isn't an intelligent option.
But surely, whatever one's stance on these technically difficult and heartbreaking issues, there must be deep dismay at the way they were handled by our elected representatives. There was a
-maryam-naaz-theo-corbett-and-rachel-carter-with-(front-from-left)-arya-vindlacheruvu-and-jessica-ashcroft.tmb-mov69x69.jpg?sfvrsn=47f89300_1)
