Friday, 25th July, 2008 RSS Feeds
Add to Google Add to My Yahoo! (requires My Yahoo account). Add to My MSN (requires My MSN account). Add to My AOL (requires My AOL account).

Published: Thursday, 15th May, 2008 10:00

Rob Wilson's Westminster Diary

By Rob Wilson, MP for Reading East

Comment Bubble Comments (0) Printer Print Article
Image related to story, see caption or article text

Reading East MP Rob Wilson

THE Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill finally arrived in the Commons this week and if I’m honest, I’ve been slightly dreading it.

The issues involved are very complex indeed, requiring, rather strangely, either deep thought or no thought at all.

I should probably have just gone with my instincts, but instead I have spent more hours than I wish to declare here pondering the moral issues.

Even as I sit here writing this, I’m prone to drift into further contemplation of the issues!

Just to remind you, there are four main issues involved: the creation of hybrid human/animal embryos, “saviour siblings” (born in order to help another child), the proposal that IVF clinics should no longer have to consider the need for a “father” figure when deciding whether to offer treatment, and the reduction in the time limit for abortions to 20 weeks from the current 24.

On my side of the House, we Conservatives have been given a free vote on every piece of the Bill in its entirety, as happened back in 1990 when these issues were last debated. On the Government benches they have partial freedom, as long as they vote the Bill through.

Frankly, I find the thought of human/animal hybrid embryos utterly revolting.

My instinct is that interfering with nature, playing God if you like, is morally extremely dangerous. If we start along this path, where will it all end?

Yet, the research that this will allow could help to find breakthroughs for some of our most serious illnesses, such as Motor Neurone Disease or MS.

Who am I to stand in the way of people who are suffering and in need of hope?

Similarly having a child to save another child somehow seems morally wrong – some suggest it will lead to children being used for spare parts.

Perhaps over dramatic, but as a parent would I do everything I could to save one of my children from a serious illness? Of course I would.

I have thought long and hard about the need for children to have fathers in their life where it is at all possible. IVF treatment centres should still have to consider the need for a father and last year’s equality legislation has already dealt with the issue of same sex couples and children.

Reducing the limit to 20 weeks on abortion is a sensible and overdue move.

It will bring us closer in line with other European countries (where it is mostly 18 or 12 weeks) and recognise that children born at 24 weeks are surviving in greater numbers. Technology used in neo-natal care has improved and with it survival rates.

This is one of those Bills where, as an MP, you will upset half your constituents whichever choice you make. When I was elected as an MP, I always said I would not vote for party advantage, but always “try to do the right thing”.

As you can probably tell, I’ve found this current Bill extremely difficult, and sometimes the decisions are so finely balanced you can never be sure whether you’ve done the right thing or not.

Perhaps that’s why I’ve spent so long wrestling with my conscience.

PS I’ve just heard that guidelines have been issued by the Lord Chief Justice, that those caught carrying knives should escape with just a community sentence.

Under guidelines issued through the Sentencing Guidelines Council to Magistrates’ Courts in England and Wales those with other mitigating circumstances could even get away merely with a fine. I have campaigned vigorously against knife crime and heard first hand about its impact on victims and these new guidelines are utterly irresponsible and should be rejected.

At a time when the Government has just reclassified cannabis to a higher category in order to 'send a message’ to users and dealers, what sort of message does it send to those carrying knives that it has effectively been down-graded to the same level as a traffic offence?

It is utterly irresponsible to reduce the penalties on those carrying knives. The best way to stop knives being used is to clamp down on them being carried.

comments Comments

Log in or Register to post a comment

Chronicle Advertisement

Travel Deals

Ben

Seafrance

SIBLU

XL.COM

Most Read

Special Publications