Embryos use bill clears its first hurdle
Controversial legislation to regulate the use of embryos in scientific research passed its first hurdle in the House of Commons last night, amid protests that Labour MPs would be forced into a whipped vote to ensure its progress.
The government carried the day comfortably by 340 to 78, a majority of 262, in a vote on the broad principles of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill that will allow the creation of hybrid or "admixed" embryos, which scientists hope will lead to developments in the treatment of conditions such as Alzheimer's and Parkinson's.
Nine Labour back benchers voted against the bill, among them Tom Clarke, MP for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill.
Opening the second reading debate, Health Secretary Alan Johnson said the bill would bring this "new and exciting development" within a "strict legal and ethical framework".
The debate in the Commons exposed some of the deep divisions among MPs on the ethics of scientific research and several Labour MPs are expected to vote against some clauses in the committee stage which begins next week.
Some Catholic MPs and three government ministers oppose measures in the bill which scientists say are vital to improving fertility and the treatment of genetic conditions.
When the bill is considered in detail, Labour MPs will be allowed free votes on three issues - hybrid embryos, the creation of "saviour siblings" and preventing fertility clinics from refusing treatment to single women or lesbians.
Mr Johnson said: "We do believe that some elements of this bill require the same complete free vote for ministers and others. But the bill itself, a flagship bill of government now building on a precedent that has gone on for 18 years, should be whipped at second and third reading."
Fierce clashes are also expected next week when pro-life campaigners attempt to add amendments to lower the abortion time limit. Conservative leader David Cameron has said he would support lowering the limit to 20 weeks from its current 24 weeks.
Mr Johnson said: "Parliament's objective has always been to support scientific advances that benefit patients and their families through a clear legal, moral and ethical framework."
The bill updates the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. Senior Tory Kenneth Clarke, health secretary at that time, said, "every member of the House was given a free vote on all issues they perceived to be ethical at any stage".
The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have free votes on all stages of the bill.
Geraldine Smith, Labour MP for Morecambe and Lunesdale, said she would be in the no lobby with several colleagues. She said: "I fully respect the government's position on this, but I think the government should respect the position of members who will vote against the government tonight and I do that with sorrow."
Mr Johnson said the bill would give same-sex couples, who have children through assisted conception, the same parenting rights as heterosexual couples, bringing this area of law into line with other anti-discrimination legislation.
Shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley said: "If members have ethical considerations which, in their view, prevail over any other considerations, they should be in a position to exercise their judgment."
© All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without
permission is prohibited.
Posted by: BM, Glasgow on 10:58pm Mon 12 May 08
Conscience is obviously an alien concept to a totalitarian thug like Brown. How this man would have fitted in in Nazi Germany!
Conscience is obviously an alien concept to a totalitarian thug like Brown. How this man would have fitted in in Nazi Germany!
Posted by: ColinE, Dundee on 11:34pm Mon 12 May 08
Only idiots would attach more importance and value to a few biological cells than to the alleviation of human pain and suffering. Scientists should be allowed to get on with the research which can so greatly benefit mankind without interference from ignorant politicians and superstitious cult members.
Only idiots would attach more importance and value to a few biological cells than to the alleviation of human pain and suffering. Scientists should be allowed to get on with the research which can so greatly benefit mankind without interference from ignorant politicians and superstitious cult members.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 1:01am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]ColinE[/bold] wrote:
Only idiots would attach more importance and value to a few biological cells than to the alleviation of human pain and suffering. Scientists should be allowed to get on with the research which can so greatly benefit mankind without interference from ignorant politicians and superstitious cult members.[/quote] Did your mom take thalidomide when she was pregnant?
ColinE wrote:
Only idiots would attach more importance and value to a few biological cells than to the alleviation of human pain and suffering. Scientists should be allowed to get on with the research which can so greatly benefit mankind without interference from ignorant politicians and superstitious cult members.
Did your mom take thalidomide when she was pregnant?
Posted by: spagan, heisker, scotland on 8:16am Tue 13 May 08
Glad to see that the whole of the Commons hasn't been influenced by Opus Dei or other dark forces from the dark ages.
Slainte Mhor
Glad to see that the whole of the Commons hasn't been influenced by Opus Dei or other dark forces from the dark ages.
Slainte Mhor
Posted by: Douglas Blaney, Glasgow on 11:58am Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Scunnert[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]ColinE[/bold] wrote: Only idiots would attach more importance and value to a few biological cells than to the alleviation of human pain and suffering. Scientists should be allowed to get on with the research which can so greatly benefit mankind without interference from ignorant politicians and superstitious cult members.[/quote] Did your mom take thalidomide when she was pregnant?[/quote] That was a long time ago, today we have more systems and check to stop that kind of thing. What we are now discussing is the curing of congenital diseases that are inherited.
Scunnert wrote:
ColinE wrote: Only idiots would attach more importance and value to a few biological cells than to the alleviation of human pain and suffering. Scientists should be allowed to get on with the research which can so greatly benefit mankind without interference from ignorant politicians and superstitious cult members.
Did your mom take thalidomide when she was pregnant?
That was a long time ago, today we have more systems and check to stop that kind of thing. What we are now discussing is the curing of congenital diseases that are inherited.
Posted by: Kenny McGuigan, Coatbridge on 12:40pm Tue 13 May 08
"Nine Labour back benchers voted against the bill, among them Tom Clarke, MP for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill."
Tom has made himself a champion of the disabled over his 26 years at Westminster. Well, it's one thing securing charity for disabled people or presenting a group with a mini-bus containing a hoist, but this reactionary (who wouldn't know socialism if it jumped up and bit his nose) has once again failed that group he desperately needs to use to justify his existence.
"Nine Labour back benchers voted against the bill, among them Tom Clarke, MP for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill."
Tom has made himself a champion of the disabled over his 26 years at Westminster. Well, it's one thing securing charity for disabled people or presenting a group with a mini-bus containing a hoist, but this reactionary (who wouldn't know socialism if it jumped up and bit his nose) has once again failed that group he desperately needs to use to justify his existence.
Posted by: arg1272, Glasgow on 1:11pm Tue 13 May 08
This Act allows the Secretary of State to make regulations defining discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation.
This amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill would have allowed unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt children.
Two of the other things Tom Clarke MP voted against. Is he taking his instructions directly from the Cardinal or do they discuss it at the Knights of Columbus meetings first?
This Act allows the Secretary of State to make regulations defining discrimination and harassment on grounds of sexual orientation.
This amendment to the Adoption and Children Bill would have allowed unmarried heterosexual couples to adopt children.
Two of the other things Tom Clarke MP voted against. Is he taking his instructions directly from the Cardinal or do they discuss it at the Knights of Columbus meetings first?
Posted by: sam, greenock on 2:56pm Tue 13 May 08
I wouldn't waste your time asking for help of the non-praying kind from the religionistas, if your health is in meltdown.
Speaking from my own experiences, my mum was a CofS person, in the womens guild, sunday school teacher, kirk elder and worked around the church for most of her life.
When she became ill with dementia, you couldn't see her church "friends" for dust, you would've thought she was highly contagious. My dad who was never really much of a church goer thought most of them were hypocrits already anyway, before hand.
It definately showed up who they real friends were.
As far as I'm concerned they're all hypocritical scumbags who wouldn't know how to help someone in trouble if it their lives depended on it
They can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned, hopefully they'll all get some similar disorder then they can suffer as much as my parents did. I wouldn't pish on them if they were on fire.
Roll on the implementation of this bill, nobody should have to go through what my happened to my mum, if this bill helps to alleviate that, all well and good.
I wouldn't waste your time asking for help of the non-praying kind from the religionistas, if your health is in meltdown.
Speaking from my own experiences, my mum was a CofS person, in the womens guild, sunday school teacher, kirk elder and worked around the church for most of her life.
When she became ill with dementia, you couldn't see her church "friends" for dust, you would've thought she was highly contagious. My dad who was never really much of a church goer thought most of them were hypocrits already anyway, before hand.
It definately showed up who they real friends were.
As far as I'm concerned they're all hypocritical scumbags who wouldn't know how to help someone in trouble if it their lives depended on it
They can all go to hell as far as I'm concerned, hopefully they'll all get some similar disorder then they can suffer as much as my parents did. I wouldn't pish on them if they were on fire.
Roll on the implementation of this bill, nobody should have to go through what my happened to my mum, if this bill helps to alleviate that, all well and good.
Posted by: Kenny McGuigan, Coatbridge on 3:48pm Tue 13 May 08
Couldn't agree more Sam.
Posted by: Kenny McGuigan, Coatbridge on 4:14pm Tue 13 May 08
Stem cells are unspecified cells that have the ability to divide, multiply, mutate, replace themselves, even destroy themselves before growing into the various types needed to eventually form a human being. They are fertilised mammalion eggs known as blastocyst. Many millions are destroyed every year in the IVF process. IVF is stem cell therapy. But do we not rejoice when a couple undergo this treatment and have children that they would otherwise not have had?
IVF treatment takes place outside the natural environment. Sperm is injected into an egg from the womb before it is put back. Is everyone who accepts this treatment sinful - or participating in "evil" as the Catholic Church claims?
Clearly, a grouplet of cells is not a person. This matter is nothing more or less than a tiny blob, capable at some future point of becoming a foetus. It has no bones, no brain, no organs, no shape, no personality, no individuality, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as a human being. The preferred term of the religious maniacs is an embryo, designed to provoke images of the semi-formed babies seen on anti-abortion posters.
The fertilised cell results in a zygote which becomes pluripotent. That is, it is able then to develop into any of the different cells with the potential to become a human being.
My MP Tom Clarke's assistant - a very decent man - has just mailed me explaining Tom's decision to vote against the Bill yesterday. The main plank of Tom's opposition is that he "believes human life to be sacrosanct". So do I. He believes that human life begins at the point of fertilisation and I can understand why people would stand for this. However, if we are going to treat a blob of matter, a grouplet of tiny cells which have only potential, as having the same rights as the rest of us...
Stem cells are unspecified cells that have the ability to divide, multiply, mutate, replace themselves, even destroy themselves before growing into the various types needed to eventually form a human being. They are fertilised mammalion eggs known as blastocyst. Many millions are destroyed every year in the IVF process. IVF is stem cell therapy. But do we not rejoice when a couple undergo this treatment and have children that they would otherwise not have had?
IVF treatment takes place outside the natural environment. Sperm is injected into an egg from the womb before it is put back. Is everyone who accepts this treatment sinful - or participating in "evil" as the Catholic Church claims?
Clearly, a grouplet of cells is not a person. This matter is nothing more or less than a tiny blob, capable at some future point of becoming a foetus. It has no bones, no brain, no organs, no shape, no personality, no individuality, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as a human being. The preferred term of the religious maniacs is an embryo, designed to provoke images of the semi-formed babies seen on anti-abortion posters.
The fertilised cell results in a zygote which becomes pluripotent. That is, it is able then to develop into any of the different cells with the potential to become a human being.
My MP Tom Clarke's assistant - a very decent man - has just mailed me explaining Tom's decision to vote against the Bill yesterday. The main plank of Tom's opposition is that he "believes human life to be sacrosanct". So do I. He believes that human life begins at the point of fertilisation and I can understand why people would stand for this. However, if we are going to treat a blob of matter, a grouplet of tiny cells which have only potential, as having the same rights as the rest of us...
Posted by: sam, greenock on 4:18pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Kenny McGuigan[/bold] wrote:
Stem cells are unspecified cells that have the ability to divide, multiply, mutate, replace themselves, even destroy themselves before growing into the various types needed to eventually form a human being. They are fertilised mammalion eggs known as blastocyst. Many millions are destroyed every year in the IVF process. IVF is stem cell therapy. But do we not rejoice when a couple undergo this treatment and have children that they would otherwise not have had? IVF treatment takes place outside the natural environment. Sperm is injected into an egg from the womb before it is put back. Is everyone who accepts this treatment sinful - or participating in "evil" as the Catholic Church claims? Clearly, a grouplet of cells is not a person. This matter is nothing more or less than a tiny blob, capable at some future point of becoming a foetus. It has no bones, no brain, no organs, no shape, no personality, no individuality, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as a human being. The preferred term of the religious maniacs is an embryo, designed to provoke images of the semi-formed babies seen on anti-abortion posters. The fertilised cell results in a zygote which becomes pluripotent. That is, it is able then to develop into any of the different cells with the potential to become a human being. My MP Tom Clarke's assistant - a very decent man - has just mailed me explaining Tom's decision to vote against the Bill yesterday. The main plank of Tom's opposition is that he "believes human life to be sacrosanct". So do I. He believes that human life begins at the point of fertilisation and I can understand why people would stand for this. However, if we are going to treat a blob of matter, a grouplet of tiny cells which have only potential, as having the same rights as the rest of us...[/quote] [quote]The main plank of Tom's opposition is that he "believes human life to be sacrosanct".[/quote]
What does he believe about your life Kenny?
Or should you just consider yourself to be lucky you have a life, no matter the illness you have to endure.
It's easy to be holier than though when your not the one with the illness.
Kenny McGuigan wrote:
Stem cells are unspecified cells that have the ability to divide, multiply, mutate, replace themselves, even destroy themselves before growing into the various types needed to eventually form a human being. They are fertilised mammalion eggs known as blastocyst. Many millions are destroyed every year in the IVF process. IVF is stem cell therapy. But do we not rejoice when a couple undergo this treatment and have children that they would otherwise not have had? IVF treatment takes place outside the natural environment. Sperm is injected into an egg from the womb before it is put back. Is everyone who accepts this treatment sinful - or participating in "evil" as the Catholic Church claims? Clearly, a grouplet of cells is not a person. This matter is nothing more or less than a tiny blob, capable at some future point of becoming a foetus. It has no bones, no brain, no organs, no shape, no personality, no individuality, it cannot by any stretch of the imagination be described as a human being. The preferred term of the religious maniacs is an embryo, designed to provoke images of the semi-formed babies seen on anti-abortion posters. The fertilised cell results in a zygote which becomes pluripotent. That is, it is able then to develop into any of the different cells with the potential to become a human being. My MP Tom Clarke's assistant - a very decent man - has just mailed me explaining Tom's decision to vote against the Bill yesterday. The main plank of Tom's opposition is that he "believes human life to be sacrosanct". So do I. He believes that human life begins at the point of fertilisation and I can understand why people would stand for this. However, if we are going to treat a blob of matter, a grouplet of tiny cells which have only potential, as having the same rights as the rest of us...
The main plank of Tom's opposition is that he "believes human life to be sacrosanct".
What does he believe about your life Kenny?
Or should you just consider yourself to be lucky you have a life, no matter the illness you have to endure.
It's easy to be holier than though when your not the one with the illness.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 4:42pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Douglas Blaney[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Scunnert[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]ColinE[/bold] wrote: Only idiots would attach more importance and value to a few biological cells than to the alleviation of human pain and suffering. Scientists should be allowed to get on with the research which can so greatly benefit mankind without interference from ignorant politicians and superstitious cult members.[/quote] Did your mom take thalidomide when she was pregnant?[/quote] That was a long time ago, today we have more systems and check to stop that kind of thing. What we are now discussing is the curing of congenital diseases that are inherited. [/quote] [quote]Since the death of 19-year old Jesse Gelsinger in a 1999 gene therapy trial, the field of medical research has been profoundly shaken, and the system of patient protections is being more closely scrutinized than ever before. But any attempt to tighten the rules continues to meet with resistance. For example, both the FDA and the NIH are beginning to understand that the public’s mistrust of controversial new scientific technologies (e.g., gene therapy, xenotransplantation, stem cell research, etc.) is rooted in the secrecy surrounding these experiments, and this “Frankenstein Syndrome” can no longer be tolerated.[/quote]
http://www.raredisea
ses.org/news/speeche
s/humanresearch
Douglas Blaney wrote:
Scunnert wrote:
ColinE wrote: Only idiots would attach more importance and value to a few biological cells than to the alleviation of human pain and suffering. Scientists should be allowed to get on with the research which can so greatly benefit mankind without interference from ignorant politicians and superstitious cult members.
Did your mom take thalidomide when she was pregnant?
That was a long time ago, today we have more systems and check to stop that kind of thing. What we are now discussing is the curing of congenital diseases that are inherited.
Since the death of 19-year old Jesse Gelsinger in a 1999 gene therapy trial, the field of medical research has been profoundly shaken, and the system of patient protections is being more closely scrutinized than ever before. But any attempt to tighten the rules continues to meet with resistance. For example, both the FDA and the NIH are beginning to understand that the public’s mistrust of controversial new scientific technologies (e.g., gene therapy, xenotransplantation, stem cell research, etc.) is rooted in the secrecy surrounding these experiments, and this “Frankenstein Syndrome” can no longer be tolerated.
http://www.raredisea
ses.org/news/speeche
s/humanresearch
Posted by: sam, greenock on 5:52pm Tue 13 May 08
[quote][bold]Scunnert[/bold] wrote:
[quote][bold]Douglas Blaney[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]Scunnert[/bold] wrote: [quote][bold]ColinE[/bold] wrote: Only idiots would attach more importance and value to a few biological cells than to the alleviation of human pain and suffering. Scientists should be allowed to get on with the research which can so greatly benefit mankind without interference from ignorant politicians and superstitious cult members.[/quote] Did your mom take thalidomide when she was pregnant?[/quote] That was a long time ago, today we have more systems and check to stop that kind of thing. What we are now discussing is the curing of congenital diseases that are inherited. [/quote] [quote]Since the death of 19-year old Jesse Gelsinger in a 1999 gene therapy trial, the field of medical research has been profoundly shaken, and the system of patient protections is being more closely scrutinized than ever before. But any attempt to tighten the rules continues to meet with resistance. For example, both the FDA and the NIH are beginning to understand that the public’s mistrust of controversial new scientific technologies (e.g., gene therapy, xenotransplantation, stem cell research, etc.) is rooted in the secrecy surrounding these experiments, and this “Frankenstein Syndrome” can no longer be tolerated.[/quote] http://www.raredisea ses.org/news/speeche s/humanresearch [/quote] Scunnert,
Thanks for that............what I take from this speech is that awful things have happened in the past to humans, being experimented on for one.
The speech says that real tough oversight should be used in thse human based experiments, nothing at all wrong with that.
It doesn't mention any problem with embryo resaerch
Scunnert wrote:
Douglas Blaney wrote: Scunnert wrote: ColinE wrote: Only idiots would attach more importance and value to a few biological cells than to the alleviation of human pain and suffering. Scientists should be allowed to get on with the research which can so greatly benefit mankind without interference from ignorant politicians and superstitious cult members.
Did your mom take thalidomide when she was pregnant?
That was a long time ago, today we have more systems and check to stop that kind of thing. What we are now discussing is the curing of congenital diseases that are inherited.
Since the death of 19-year old Jesse Gelsinger in a 1999 gene therapy trial, the field of medical research has been profoundly shaken, and the system of patient protections is being more closely scrutinized than ever before. But any attempt to tighten the rules continues to meet with resistance. For example, both the FDA and the NIH are beginning to understand that the public’s mistrust of controversial new scientific technologies (e.g., gene therapy, xenotransplantation, stem cell research, etc.) is rooted in the secrecy surrounding these experiments, and this “Frankenstein Syndrome” can no longer be tolerated.
http://www.raredisea ses.org/news/speeche s/humanresearch
Scunnert,
Thanks for that............what I take from this speech is that awful things have happened in the past to humans, being experimented on for one.
The speech says that real tough oversight should be used in thse human based experiments, nothing at all wrong with that.
It doesn't mention any problem with embryo resaerch
Posted by: sam, greenock on 5:54pm Tue 13 May 08
P.S Scunnert,
I've noticed you posting your objections to this bill before, on other threads, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
At least you post your objections with what you see as supporting info, not some religionista nonsense about "god" not likening it.
P.S Scunnert,
I've noticed you posting your objections to this bill before, on other threads, we'll have to agree to disagree on this.
At least you post your objections with what you see as supporting info, not some religionista nonsense about "god" not likening it.
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 5:59pm Tue 13 May 08
sam, greenock on 5:52pm today
Sam I merely used this to illustrate that researchers must be kept on a tight leash. The ultimate goal of research in the modern world is money - not patient welfare - not curing the sick. As a society we should be wary of the claims which amount to nothing more than advertising. As has been shown in the past - bad things can happen.
sam, greenock on 5:52pm today
Sam I merely used this to illustrate that researchers must be kept on a tight leash. The ultimate goal of research in the modern world is money - not patient welfare - not curing the sick. As a society we should be wary of the claims which amount to nothing more than advertising. As has been shown in the past - bad things can happen.
News
INDEX
Comment | Read Comments (15)
