I read about the bill but I don't know if I understand all really. The bill has a lot of ideas I think so very complicated. Also I don't know UK legislation process so probably I need to read again to find more.
---
Introduced by Lord Darzi of Denham = Parlimentary Under-Secretary of State for the Ministry of Health ("The Professor Lord Denham")
* Telephone: 020 7210 5425
* Fax: 020 7210 5066
* Email:
stephen.cordes@dh.gsi.gov.uk
---
Supported by Health Minister Dawn Primarolo ("The Right Honorable")
* Telephone: 020 7210 5119
* Fax: 020 7210 5534
* Email:
MSPHtemp@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Also - Department of Health (supports bill)
* Address: Richmond House, 79 Whitehall, London, SW1A 2NS
* Telephone: 020 7210 4850
* Website:
DH home : Department of Health
* Generic Email format:
firstname.lastname@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Parliamentary Branch of Department of Health
* Telephone: 020 7210 5808
* Fax: 020 7210 5814
* Email:
tim.elms@dh.gsi.gov.uk
Correspondence Section of Department of Health (?)
* Telephone: 020 7210 4850
* Email:
dhmail@dh.gsi.gov.uk
---
Article from British Medical Assocation - nothing useful really but information on other parts of bill
From the British Medical Association:
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, House of Lords, November 2007
The BMA supports the main proposals within the Bill related to assisted reproduction treatment and the use of embryos for research purposes. Amendments to the legislation are necessary to take account of scientific developments since 1990 and to reflect changes in societal attitudes. The BMA supports the view that the development and use of reproductive technology should continue to be subject to statutory regulation.
The BMA supports the current model of UK-wide regulation with the broad framework set out in legislation and a statutory body - the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) -interpreting and applying the framework. This provides the flexibility that is needed in such a fast-moving area. Regulation in this area continues to be appropriate because:
* The human embryo is, in our society, afforded a “special status” and therefore the creation and, in some cases, destruction of human life in vitro continues to be a sensitive issue.
* As above, the “special status” reflects sensitivities that extend to the use of donated gametes and embryos in treatment, despite these being technically routine procedures.
* Statutory regulation provides important protection for those seeking treatment much of which is on a self-funded basis within a commercial setting.
* To maintain public confidence, it is important that there are clear controls to prevent clinics and research institutions crossing the boundary of what, as a society, we consider to be acceptable practice. The existence of a statutory regulatory body can provide protection for clinics and help to promote an environment within which carefully monitored research and innovation can flourish.
The BMA strongly supports the use of human embryos in research, subject to statutory controls. The regulation of embryo research through the HFEA licensing and inspection regime has worked well since 1991 and has helped to maintain public support for such research. Embryo research has helped to improve existing treatments and advance the development of new techniques such as preimplantation genetic diagnosis (PGD). In recent years, embryonic stem cell research has helped to further our understanding of early human development and is starting to further our understanding of diseases such as Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s.
Welfare of the child (clause 14)
* The BMA supports the retention of a “welfare of the child” provision and the removal of the term “need for a father”.
The BMA acknowledges that the requirement to consider the welfare of the child before treatment is offered is regarded by some people as discrimination against those who are infertile on the grounds that those who conceive naturally are not prevented from reproducing, even if there is a clear risk to a future child. The BMA believes, nevertheless, that where a health professional is involved in assisting conception, that person has some responsibility to ensure that a future child is not subjected to foreseeable serious harm. In order to reflect this interpretation of the welfare of the child provision, and to prevent misunderstanding, there may be some benefit in rephrasing this clause to specifically refer to cases where there is a “foreseeable risk of serious harm”.
Clause 14(2)(b): the BMA also supports the removal from the Act of the term “need for a father”. We have consistently rejected the idea of applying inflexible rules on access to fertility treatment believing instead that each application should be considered on its merits. Assessments should be made on the individual factors in each case rather than on blanket restrictions applied to certain categories of people or family arrangements. Whilst there is evidence that children raised by single women are more likely to be disadvantaged, this is not the case for children born to single women or lesbian couples who choose to start a family on their own by assisted conception. Early research shows that these children fare just as well as those born by assisted conception to two heterosexual parents.