Skip to main content

Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

A number of constituents have written to me about the above Bill. It strikes me that this is an issue upon which I have no formally established position. On that basis I would wish to try to hold a public meeting at which Constituents (and only constituents) can attend to express their views about the issue.

I am not particularly religious, but I am worried at the extent to which we as a society are moving away from valuing people. I am quite uncomfortable with the idea of creating hybrid embryos. However, I think this is something that warrants a public meeting.

Anyone who is a constituent who wishes to be invited should contact my constituency office leaving their name and address. (Office number 0121 722 3417)

Comments

Joe Otten said…
I'm not a constituent, but there is something bizarre in this debate.

Are we supposed to believer that advancing medicine to save lives and reduce suffering is "not valuing people"?

The idea of a stem cell as a person is absurd as the idea of a skin cell as a person. The notion of the sanctity of a tissue sample is unbiblical, a recent invention, arbitrary, ignorant, and evil.
PaulineG said…
Perhaps as a non-constituent I should keep out of this. I don't know. Apologies if I am out of order, but this Bill concerns me very much.

On Joe’s comments:

We need to be careful with language here. There seems to be no clear agreed definition of "personhood". It is a philosophical rather than a biological construct. I don't think many of those who have doubts about these proposals claim to know that the embryo is a person.

But many of us do believe that science and reason tell us clearly that the embryo is early human life. That fact alone provides sufficient grounds to object both to the deliberate destruction of a fully human embryo and to the generation of a mixed species embryo.

Neither is it correct to suggest, as Joe does, that objections are based on the assertion that either a stem cell or a skin cell is a person, or indeed a human life. That is clearly, in general, nonsense. (I say “in general” because the newly fertilised one-cell egg is both a special type of stem cell and an embryo. But it is by virtue as its status as an embryo that it should be protected and not because it is a stem cell.) The argument Joe attacks as "arbitrary, ignorant and evil" is therefore his own straw man.

Well done, Mr Hemmings, for setting up a public meeting. I wish you well with it.

May I respectfully suggest you read the Bill with the greatest care? There seems to be a deal of misinformation swimming around about the actual proposals under the Bill, some of which has, unfortunately, been accepted by MPs and fed back to constituents. For example, the BBC asserts that the mixing of animal and human gametes will remain outlawed. That is simply not true (see Clause 4).

There is a very good Sunday Times article on the Bill, ("An embryonic disaster?" 16th March edition) here:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3559306.ece


Regards,
Darren said…
Stem cell research holds a great deal of promise in the treatment of a wide range of diseases. There are several different sources of stem cells, but the best chance of defeating debilitating illnesses like Parkinson's Disease will only come if the medical research community has the widest possible range of tools at its disposal. This Bill helps with that.

The ethically right thing to do is to work to reduce the suffering of the elderly and others with diseases that may one day be treatable. Invoking works of fiction from the horror genre is extremely unhelpful when thousands of people will die waiting for the treatments that this Bill could make possible.
Joe Otten said…
Pauline, of course you may think a one-cell "embryo" is a kind of person, but please, at some point tell us why you think so. All I hear from the advocates of this position is the stamping of feet.

A one cell "embryo" is hardly distinguishable from half of a two-cell embryo - that would develop into two people if split and implanted separately. Should we "protect" all such cells by actively splitting them - to prevent one person being subsumed into another?

What if we invented the techonology to grow an embryo from a liver cell? Would it then become incumbent upon us to do this with every liver cell we could find? If we didn't we would be denying some person a chance to exist, right?

This is the sort of absurdity that follows from sanctifying a cell. And it necessarily dilutes the moral significance attached to real people and this is evil, and not just because of the promotion of disease.
Tim Weller said…
It sounds as though you are saying, John, that only the religious value people!

For the religious, their emphasis on the sanctity of life, means that:
1 they are more likely to support capital punishment;
2 in the USA the supporting of guns without controls;
3 no to abortion for the unborn but yes to killing the born in the War of Terrorism; and,
4 greater discomfort over contraception (the anti-life pill) than the non-religious! Population control seems to be more of a problem for the religious - "fill the earth and subdue it" from the Genesis creation story.

Tim Weller
john said…
I am not saying that. I am saying that there is a problem moving away from valuing life towards valuing knowledge.

It is very difficult to get any answers from the Department or Health about certain research projects.

The research accountability does not happen. Hence we need to draw tight boundaries.
Peter said…
John Hemming, Liberal Democrat MP for Birmingham Yardley. John keeps constituents and others up to speed with his thoughts and news. John Hemming's understanding of the changes in Law.
========================
Peter
widecircles

Popular posts from this blog

Millionaires and politics

The Labour Party spent most of the last election criticising me for being a successful businessman (aka millionaire). That is business in the private sector employing over 250 people. It is worth looking at the situation for the Labour Candidate now:

For the year 2016-7 Annual Income from Parliament74,962Specifically for her book51,250Other media income etc5,322.82Total declared income131,534.82

Traditionally anyone with an annual income of over £100,000 has been considered to be a millionaire. I did not use my position in parliament to increase my income.


I have been asked for sources for this. This BBC piece looks at how one should define rich. It was written in 2011 so the figures will be slightly out of date. There are perhaps 2 relevant pieces:
"In 1880 a rich person would have had £100,000 in assets or an income of £10,000 a year, he says. About a hundred people a year died leaving £100,000 and by 1910 this was 250 - "a microscopic fraction of the number of death…

Gender Issues comparison of candidates

John Hemming believes that an MP should represent everyone in their constituency.  This should be regardless of their race, religion, gender, abledness, sexual orientation or anything else.  It should be everyone.

When he was an MP he worked on issues relating to men, those relating to women and those relating to non-binary people. Everyone.

For example here is John Hemming on a demonstration outside the courts with the campaign group Women Against Rape (it related to the case of a mother who had her child removed from her because the mother was raped).




Jess Phillips, who campaigns on women's issues, notwithstanding the questions asked about her appointments in her parliamentary office, had the following response when asked for a debate on issues specifically relating to men:

The Labour Candidate's Book Promotion Tour and Why It Matters

In the 2015 General Election the Labour Candidate criticised John Hemming for having an external interest and made a pledge that she would be a "Full Time MP for Yardley and my only other job will be mom & carer ...".  Here is a copy of that pledge:


Since that point she has been working on paid Television Programmes and has also written a book. John Hemming has made no secret of the fact that he chairs the board of the company he founded in 1983. This involves one meeting a month. When he was the MP for Yardley he was a full time MP and the Job of being MP for Yardley came first. The Labour candidate has reported 1,274 hours of work other than being an MP in the two years she has been elected and her income in the last year was over £131,000.

Ignoring the question as to how she reconciles that with her "pledge" the question is raised as to what extent her external activity conflicts with the role of Member of Parliament for Yardley. She is supposed to de…