Skip to main content

HFE Bill again

Yesterday I voted generally against human hybrid embryos on the basis that currently research regulation is not working and I am hence concerned about pushing the boundaries of the law whilst research regulation is inadequate.

I voted both (present abstention) on saviour siblings and to prevent a saviour sibling from being created to give an organ transplant. (the "regenerative" option).

On the issue of children and IVF I am concerned that insufficient priority is given to considering children and their interests. When it comes to lesbian couples and single women the law already requires that they are not discriminated against. I do, however, think that it is better for the child for there to be a knowledge of who a child's father is with the potential for (infrequent) contact than no links to the father other than through a clinic - hence "need for a father". The parental responsibilities would lie with those caring for the child, but there would be a positive option for the child of knowing its father. (hence need for a father and mother rather than father or male role model)

On the issue of abortion I will vote for either the 24 week or 23 weeks 6 days option. The later abortions that occur are generally very difficult situations for the parents and I do not think bringing the criminal law to bear will assist in resolving these situations. I do think more effort needs to go into reducing the numbers of abortions. This mainly has to involve the use of contraception although for young teenagers obviously abstention as a first choice should be the government policy, with contraception as a second best. It is depressing to know that some 14 year olds have had more than one abortion.

Comments

PoliticalHack said…
Good call on the 24 week vote, but why the abstention on saviour siblings?
john said…
I do not think embryo testing should be used to create a saviour sibling for organ transplant. I don't have a big problem with umbilical stem cells, blood transfusion or bone marrow (although there is a consent issue for two of those). The amendment which fell to prevent organ transplant options was after the vote on Saviour Siblings.

Popular posts from this blog

Statement re false allegations from Esther Baker

Statement by John Hemming
I am pleased that the Police have now made it clear that there has been a concerted effort to promote false criminal allegations against me and that the allegations had no substance whatsoever.
I would like to thank Emily Cox, my children, Ayaz Iqbal (my Solicitor), my local lib dem team and many others who supported me through this dreadful experience. There are many worse things that happen to people, but this was a really bad experience.
It is bad enough to have false allegations made about yourself to the police, but to have a concerted campaign involving your political opponents and many others in public creates an environment in which it is reasonable to be concerned about ill founded vigilante attacks on your family and yourself. Luckily there was a more substantial lobby to the contrary as well, which included many people who were themselves real survivors of abuse, which has helped.
I am normally someone who helps other people fight injustice. …

Statement re Police investigation into Harassment and Perverting the Course of Justice.

It was recently reported that the police were not investigating the allegations of Perverting the Course of Justice that I had made. This came as a surprise to me as I had been told for some time that my allegations were to be considered once the VRR had been rejected. I have now had a very constructive meeting with Staffordshire police on Friday 29th June 2018 and the misunderstandings have been resolved. At that meeting the evidence relating to the perversion of the course of justice and the harassment campaign against my family were discussed. The police have decided to investigate both the perversion of the course of justice and also the harassment campaign. I would like to thank them for changing their decision and I accept their apology for the way in which they did that. I am also in possession of written confirmation a police force would be investigating allegations that a vulnerable witness has been harassed for trying to expose the campaign against me. I hope that the aut…

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

I have only just found this one which I think is accurately reported below (but if it is not please give me an accurate report).

KING’S BENCH DIVISION

R v SUSSEX JUSTICES ex p McCARTHY [1924] 1 KB 256

November 9 1923

Editor’s comments in bold.

Here, the magistrates’ clerk retired with the bench when they were considering a charge of dangerous driving. The clerk belonged to a firm of solicitors acting in civil proceedings for the other party to the accident. It was entirely irrelevant that there had been no evidence of actual influence brought to bear on the magistrates, and the conviction was duly quashed.

LORD HEWART CJ:
It is clear that the deputy clerk was a member of the firm of solicitors engaged in the conduct of proceedings for damages against the applicant in respect of the same collision as that which gave rise to the charge that the justices were considering. It is said, and, no doubt, truly, that when that gentleman retired in the usual way with the justices, taking with him the…