Freezing of Human Embryos (Hansard, 2 April 1996)

§ Mr. David Amess (Basildon)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to ban the freezing of human embryos.

The Bill that I am introducing today would have the effect of stopping the practice of freezing human embryos in hospitals and clinics where in vitro fertilisation treatment is provided. My Bill proposes to do this by adding the three words "freezing an embryo" to the list of procedures that cannot be licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990.

Medical science is such that practically every week an announcement is made about or there is a report of some new breakthrough which will help any number of people with medical problems. Such announcements, sadly, often give hope to our constituents when the reality is that the report is simply speculation and the procedure being suggested is only at the trial stage.

I well recall the detail of the debate that we had in 1990 in the House when we discussed human fertilisation and embryology. It is quite clear that in 1996 we know much more than we did then about the effects of freezing the human embryo. I am grateful for a report that an organisation called CORE, led by Josephine Quintavalle, has produced; for the work of Jack Scarisbrick of Life; and, as ever, for the assistance of the Society for the Protection of the Unborn Child, under the leadership of Phyllis Bowman.

This issue has been highlighted by the Government's introduction of regulations to allow for embryos stored in freezers for the past five years to be stored for another five years. I must tell the Government that I much regret that, apparently, those regulations will not be debated on the Floor of the House.

Nearly 300,000 embryos were created between 1991 and 1994. Most were destroyed or experimented on, but some 63,000 were frozen. Many of our citizens regard such freezing of human life as deeply repugnant. The licensing body admits that it has lost track of the parents of 3,000 of the embryos. Hon. Members will have followed in the media recently many disturbing stories about the plight of those human embryos generated in the course of IVF treatment who were surplus to immediate requirements and so were put into cold storage for future use, but whose parents can no longer be traced. Sometimes the parents have remarried or left the country. Others may have decided that the annual fee of £100, which parents must pay for the storage of their offspring, was not worth it. Yet others may have lost interest for other reasons.

We are facing a tangled and unfortunate moral dilemma. What should we do with those orphans? There is still no convincing evidence that we understand the full long-term implications of cryopreservation. Recent negative reports warn about hazards. Embryo freezing is not really a successful technique, with just a 7 to 10 per cent. live baby rate. It will be outdated quickly by new developments in the freezing of eggs rather than embryos.

154 Clinical opinion and scientific reports suggest that the possibility of significant long-term damage, as a result of cryopreservation, cannot be ruled out. It is extraordinary that only one major study into the long-term effects of cryopreservation has so far been conducted. Drugs should undergo extensive toxicological tests on a number of different animals over a long time before they proceed to clinical trials.

The only study that has examined the long-term effects of cryopreservation has raised concerns. The ectopic pregnancy rate for unfrozen embryos is also inexplicably high. There is growing evidence that the experience of freezing and thawing not only kills on an unacceptably large scale but can cause serious long-term damage to the survivors. There is evidence from Cambridge in the United States, and especially from France, that even if embryos survive the experience, the shock of being frozen can cause serious genetic dislocation that could manifest itself perhaps years later in the form of major abnormalities. It is to be regretted that attempts were made to discredit the findings of a distinguished team of doctors in Paris.

The status of the embryo has never been defined. In legal disputes we are in triple limbo because embryos are considered as human beings, sort of human or simply property. If gamete donation has been involved in the case of abandoned embryos, it is even harder to decide who owns an embryo. Despite repeated statements from the HI-BA that all assisted reproductive technology is done in the interests of the offspring, no research is available from the child's perspective. It is lamentable that 18 years from the time of the first IVF baby, no such research has been commissioned. An examination of European practices in that regard leaves little doubt that United Kingdom legislation is liberal compared with that in Denmark, France, Germany, Norway, Spain or Sweden.

Any fertility treatment that produces surplus human embryos is contrary to the respect that is due to early human life, and it results in the deliberate or accidental killing of those embryos. Interestingly, the Hammersmith hospital does not carry out cryopreservation as it thinks that the process has been insufficiently tested and does not have a good record. This is a classic case of rushing into legislation without more careful consideration.

Some hon. Members are uncomfortable with the HFEA's regulatory regime as constituted by its present membership. It has been said that we think that it is enough to discover new things but that we do not realise that knowing more demands a corresponding development of morality. In the freezing of human embryos the end does not justify the means.