Draft Consultation Response

Draft of my response to the Mitochondrial Replacement Consultation.

I post it here for two reasons.

One is to encourage others to respond, and to give an example of how the Anscombe Centre's ecellent guidance notes have been turned into answers by one individual - but please don't copy my answers verbatim, as I think that would minimise the effectiveness of both our responses.

The other is to invite correction: if I have misunderstood anything, or got it wrong.

1. Permissibility of new techniques
Having read the information on this website about the two mitochondria replacement techniques, what are your views on offering (one or both of) these techniques to people at risk of passing on mitochondrial disease to their child? You may wish to address the two techniques separately. 

My views are that both of these techniques are seriously problematic, for a number of reasons, and should not be offered.

The benefits - having some genetic connection between parents and child - do not justify the procedures. There seem to be no other benefits that could not be realised in other ways.

MST is creating a child from three parents: this creates a series of ethical problems.  One is that it denies the child the natural inheritance of two parents which all other human beings heretofore have had.  That risks creating sever problems around identity.  It also creates problems around knowledge: would a child have the right to know all her or his genetic parents? 

PNT, as I understand it, is ethically even more problematic, as it included the deliberate creation and destruction of two human embryos, as a necessary part of the process.  Again, the resultant child may have severe problems around her or his identity and origins, including a sense of sibling loss (or even sibling sacrifice).

A further risk of both is cultivating an assumption in society that children are, in some sense, commodities that can be created to order. I have profound misgivings about the implications of such an assumption becoming widespread.

2. Changing the germ line
Do you think there are social and ethical implications to changing the germ line in the way the techniques do? If so, what are they? 

We are playing here with the very stuff of human life and human identity: of course there are social and ethical implications.  Because we are at the boundaries of existing knowledge and practice, it is not clear precisely what they are, and for that reason alone we should be very wary.  By the nature of it, any change in the germ lines will be passed on from generation to generation: we do not know what we are doing here, or what may result.  Further, once we allow such techniques in principle once, they will doubtless be employed in more and more situations.  There is a real risk of unleashing changes we do not understand, cannot reverse, and which will spread exponentially.

3. Implications for identity
Considering the possible impact of mitochondria replacement on a person's sense of identity, do you think there are social and ethical implications? If so, what are they? 

The attempts to erase the identity of the donor mother in MST strike me as very problematic in terms of the resultant child's identity.  I try to put myself in the shoes of a resultant child and ponder the questions I would have about my origins, parentage and identity, and it is very murky.  Why should we even consider doing this to a child?

Similar considerations arise with regard to PNT: I would see myself as a clone created from the spare parts of two siblings, created and destroyed in order that I might be brought to life. How can we predict what effect that might have on a child?  Why should we do this to someone?

4. The status of the mitochondria donor
a) In your view how does the donation of mitochondria compare to existing types of donation? Please specify what you think this means for the status of a mitochondria donor. 

This is a very murky area. In the case of MST, the donor is donating the spindle, that is nuclear genes, but not the egg itself.  So the spindle donor and the egg donor are both partial mothers - an entirely new category that would be brought into existence by this technology.

Likewise in PNT, the pro-nucleus is transferred into a scond egg - but this is then cloned  and the original embryo destroyed.  What does that make the status of the donor? It is very hard to say, but the most accurate description would be the partial mother of an embryo that was always destined to be destroyed.  I suspect donors are likely to struggle with this concept, if they are able to grasp it at all.

Given current concerns about the potential exploitation of donors already, it seems reckless to introduce these further complications and risks, whose impact on the donors is unpredictable.

b) Thinking about your response to 4a, what information about the mitochondria donor do you think a child should have? (Choose one response only)

•   The child should get no information
  
•   The child should be able to get medical and personal information about the mitochondria donor,
  but never know their identity
  
•   The child should be able to get medical and personal information about the mitochondria donor
  and be able to contact them once the child reaches the age of 18
  
•   Other
  
•   I do not think mitochondria replacement should be permitted in treatment at all Please explain your choice. 
  

I think that the name mitochondrial replacement is a misnomer: it does not accurately describe either MST or PNT. I also think that neither of them should be allowed, as the risks and ethical concerns they raise far outweigh the benefits, nearly all of which could be realised in other, wholly ethical ways.

However, if MST were to be allowed, I believe it important that any resultant children should have the same rights as any other child conceived using donor eggs and sperm, in terms of knowing all their genetic parentage.

If I have understood it correctly, in PNT there may be as many as four parents involved in the construction of the two IVF embryos, from which a third will be cloned whilst the original two are destroyed. Again, if this labyrinthine process were to be legalised, any resultant children should have the same rights as any other child conceived using donor eggs and sperm, in terms of knowing all their genetic parentage.

I am concerned that this consultation offers a single box to tick, when the issues are so complex: on the one hand, I think (as I have ticked) that neither process should be allowed. But, should they be allowed, I also have views on how some of the impacts should be mitigated: it would have been helpful to have a process that invited such rich responses.  It worries me that such complexity is being reduced to binary thinking.

5. Regulation of mitochondria replacement
If the law changed to allow mitochondria replacement to take place in a specialist clinic regulated by the HFEA, how should decisions be made on who can access this treatment? (Choose one response only)

•   Clinics and their patients should decide when mitochondria replacement is appropriate in individual cases
  
•   The regulator should decide which mitochondrial diseases are serious enough to require mitochondria replacement and, just for these diseases, permit clinics and patients to decide when it is appropriate in individual cases
  
•   The regulator should decide which mitochondrial diseases are serious enough to require mitochondria replacement and also decide, just for these diseases, when it is appropriate in individual cases
  

 I do not think mitochondria replacement should be permitted in treatment at all Please explain your choice. 

As noted above, I think that the name mitochondrial replacement is a misnomer: it does not accurately describe either MST or PNT. I also think that neither of them should be allowed, as the risks and ethical concerns they raise far outweigh the benefits, nearly all of which could be realised in other, wholly ethical ways.

I have no confidence in regulatory bodies, as their recent history has been lamentable.  Should such techniques be approved at all, I think their should be a clear set of laws limiting them, saying both what is allowed and what is not,  debated and passed in parliament, with no room for ambiguity, interpretation or other erosion.  The regulator's role should be to enforce the law, not interpret or soften it, or campaign for its creative reinterpretation etc...

As in 4c above, I am concerned that this consultation offers a single box to tick, when the issues are so complex: on the one hand, I think (as I have ticked) that neither process should be allowed. But, should they be allowed, I also have views on how some of the impacts should be mitigated: it woul have been helpful to have a process that invited such rich responses.  It worries me that such complexity is being reduced to binary thinking.

6. Should the law be changed?
In Question 1, we asked for your views on these techniques. Please could you now tell us if you think the law should be changed to allow (one or both of) these techniques to be made available to people who are at risk of passing on mitochondrial disease to their child? You may wish to address the two techniques separately. 

I believe that neither MST nor PNT should be allowed, for all the reasons stated above.

I also believe that of the two techniques, PNT is distinctly the worst, as it invovlves the deliberate creation, for foreseen destruction, of human embryos; therefore even if the government is determined to allow some such technology, it should certainly not allow PNT.

7. Further considerations
Are there any other considerations you think decision makers should take into account when deciding whether or not to permit mitochondria replacement? 

This is the wrong response to the problem.

There are far more humane solutions to the problems facing parents who are at risk of passing on disease to any children, one of which is adoption.  I believe that radical improvement of adoption services could serve offer a de-medicalised path to such parents, and also offer better alternatives to women facing crisis pregnancies, thus reducing the number of medical terminations of pregnancy.  Such humane approaches are where the efforts, energy and resources should be directed, rather than ever complex and ethically worrying technological solutions, exciting though these may be to the scientists and medics involved.

Three parent embryos: the time to respond is now!

The government's consultation period about mitochondrial donation (by which three-parent embryos may be created) ends soon, so don't forget to let your views be known.  The home page for the consultation has some useful information about the techniques involved, and the consultation itself is here.

I don't suppose it will make much difference (cf the consultation on redefining marriage) but nonetheless I believe we have an obligation to speak out. 

The science is clever, of course, which is why the scientists and doctors are keen to do this, but the implications are worrying.

Essentially, there are two different techniques under consideration (Maternal Spindle Transfer [MST] and Pro-Nuclear Transfer [PNT]), but neither are acceptable ethically, and both risk causing severe problems of identity for any resulting children, who will have three genetic parents.

The excellent Anscombe Centre have published guidance on the issues at stake, including a question-by-question guide to the consultation and the things to bear in mind whilst answering it.

Their last line is particularly telling, it seems to me: 

The aim of MST and PNT is to satisfy the wish for a genetically related child, and this wish does not justify cloning, embryo destruction, genetically modifying the child or altering the germline.

This is the root of the problem: people believing that they may  - indeed should - do anything to gratify a wish for a genetically related child.  The child becomes an object of choice (a philosophy closely related to the abortion industry, of course) rather than intrinsically worthy of love, which might lead more to consider adoption (and reject abortion).

We live in a deeply damaged society, but if we do not at least strive to limit the damage, we are co-responsible for that.

About Adoption: in which I am profoundly stupid and a ********* liability

There has been a bit of noise on Twitter about adoption and abortion.


According to one contributor I am profoundly stupid and a (expletive deleted) liability to the pro-life cause, because I insist (her word, not mine) that ‘adoption is a pro-life option.’

She has been very vociferous about this over the last few days, but not given much reason for it.  

However yesterday, she has explained herself a bit: “Where to begin? It's not an option anyone would freely choose with an intended pregnancy. The idea would be unthinkable.” she tweeted, and then: “I can't begin to imagine the agony of a woman who gives her child up for adoption.” and finally: “I am pro life. I am not pro suffering.”  Another commentator wrote: 'Offering adoption for unwtd pregnancy, in reality, does not buy time, but reinforce need for abortion. IMNSHO .'  Another comment offered was : Pushing adoption to those that who do not see abortion as a moral evil, with hope future hope that it will buy time for mother to change mind is, it flawed reasoning and lends weight to abortion option. IMO. (sic). Note the jump: Nobody was claiming that adoption should be pushed: merely that it should not be ruled out a priori as 'not an option.'  But that's Twitter...

If anything is profoundly stupid, I think it is comments of this nature.  I am always wary of people making absolute statements, unless we are really dealing with absolutes (as I posted here).  Good for rhetorical effect, perhaps, but poor as intellectual arguments.

So why do I differ from these people?

Because clearly, both as a matter of theoretical analysis, and as a matter of historic fact, adoption is a pro-life option. Many children who might otherwise have been aborted have in fact been given up for adoption.  I know a number of people who have been adopted and a number who have adopted.  So those claiming it is not an option are, quite simply, wrong.

I suspect what they mean is that it is not helpful to mention adoption as an option to someone facing a crisis pregnancy (or possibly it is not helpful to mention it in the course of debates about abortion).  I have more sympathy with those views; but I revolt when it is expressed in absolutes: ‘adoption is not an option.’


It is not an easy option, nor a quick fix: but nobody is saying that it is.

It may be that in many situations, mentioning adoption might be unhelpful.  But to have it as a mantra, an iron law, strikes me as stupid. In some cases it may be a helpful thing to discuss.

In my initial counselling training (some 30 years ago, now, for voluntary work in another context), we were taught that helping people in a crisis to identify a number of options is generally helpful: people feel  powerless when they believe they have no choices.  That made sense to me.


I have since counselled literally hundreds of people and undergone further training in a range of counselling and therapeutic techniques, and that experience bears this view out.  I have also been closely involved in the pro-life movement for decades, founding a branch of one pro-life group in London, working at a national level, and supporting my wife in establishing another pro-life group where we now live. I have spent a lot of time with pro-life counsellors: so one commentator's view that my position is purely academic was way off the mark.  But that's Twitter...

One of the pressures women are under when contemplating an abortion is the terrible time pressure that can lead to a quick decision which is regretted for life.  If at the moment of crisis, they see their choice as: abort now, or be burdened with a child for life, that is pretty stark.  If they see that there is a third option, however difficult to contemplate, which removes the immediate time pressure, that could, in some cases, be helpful.  Indeed I know of cases in which it has been. I think the counsellor with the woman is best placed to judge that, not commentators on Twitter.

Further, I was called patronising for mentioning it, but sometimes women have decided not to have an abortion, with the intention of pursuing the adoption route, but then ended up deciding to raise their baby themselves.  Given that it has happened, I cannot see why it is patronising to mention it in the context of this discussion.

Of course, I am not advocating counselling a woman with a problem pregnancy along those lines, but that does not mean the issue is not discussable in principle.

Another problem with the way the  'not an option' argument has been proffered has been the offence and upset it causes to those who have been adopted, or have given children for adoption. I know at least one person who was understandably extremely upset about this; and I see no good reason for causing such upset.

I don't particularly mind being referred to as a ******* liability, but I do think that Tweeters of good will have a responsibility not needlessly to cause distress to others.


And there's something else.  At the heart of the abortion industry is a series of lies. Two of the worst are: it's not really a human being, and an abortion will make it as though you were never pregnant.  By discussing adoption, both of these lies are implicitly, or even explicitly, confronted.  The expectant mother is able to contemplate what it might be like to give her child away: a terrible prospect.  Implicit in that is, how much worse to kill it...  


I think we owe it to expectant mothers to confront these lies before they make the fateful decision to kill their child.  Because someday they will wake up to them, and that will be terrible indeed.  And even more terrible if they have spoken to pro-life people and fling at us the accusing question: 'Why did you never tell me...?'

As I have had cause to mention before, I think Twitter is a very poor medium for any intelligent debate, (which is why I have chosen to take up the discussion here) which may mean I have misunderstood or misrepresented others.  As ever, I am open to correction.

But for me, the bottom line is that anything which:
a) does not contradict charity or truth and
b) which may help save the life of an unborn child, and 
c) save the expectant mother from living with the reality of having had her own child killed...


should be available as an option: and setting up absolute rules that limit the scope of counsellors in this vital work is profoundly unhelpful and misguided.


Feel free to tell me where I've got it wrong: but this is my blog and I will not publish profane language on it.

Bishop vs. Bishops

I am privileged to live in the Diocese of Lancaster.


Perhaps because it is the furthest in England you can get from Ecclestone Square, the Bishop here sometimes breaks step with the Bishops' Conference of England and Wales.


Bishop O'Donoghue famously did it with his Fit for Mission series; this was well received by Rome (and many lay Catholics and priests), but ignored by the Conference...  


Now our current Bishop, Bishop Campbell has done the same thing, with his New Year Pastoral Letter, about which I shall probably write more.


Why is it that when individual Bishops speak out, they are sometimes so much more Catholic than anything that emerges from the collective bureaucracy?


Bishop O'Donoghue addressed that, too, in Fit for Mission, Church.  His analysis was that dividing important issues into  "areas of responsibility" for designated bishops to lead on, had the effect of making the rest of them "reluctant … to speak out on these issues, as if somehow they had handed over their competence in these areas to the responsible bishop and his particular committee".


This collegial approach does not seem to be working.  Bishop O'Donoghue lamented that, too.  For example:  "I must register, too, my disappointment that our Bishops' Conference recently could not agree a collegial response to the Government's legislation on same-sex adoption."


So what should we do about it?


The good bishop had plenty to say about that as well: at a talk to the Oxford Newman Society soon after the publication of Fit for Mission, Church, he had several practical and excellent suggestions.  The talk is well worth reading - and re-reading - and then acting on.


However, what has not been resolved is the problem of the Conference vs the individual bishop, the dampening effect of bureaucracy and the party line.  What we need is more bishops prepared to act as bishops: teaching with authority, in accordance with the Faith of our Fathers.

Interesting article on Same Sex Adoption

Mercatornet carries an interesting article by psychiatrist Rick Fitzgibbons on the risks of same-sex adoption, currently being conducted in the UK and the USA, driven by an ideology that places the wants of adults above the needs and rights of children. Dr Fitzgibbons cites plenty of research as well as his own clinical experience. The comments are worth reading, too.

H/t Protect the Pope

the new fascism...

1 Accept 'gay marriage' or die... See this story on Lifesite

2 Accept the gay adoption of your grandchildren (for pc reasons) or never seem them again... See this story on Fr Finigan's Blog

How liberal they are towards those with the temerity to disagree...

Homosexual parenting

As the impact of the government's Homosexual Orientations legislation takes full effect on Catholic Adoption Agencies (and I note the bishop of Lancs is the one taking the lead in terms of a truly Christian and pastoral response) , readers may be interested in this: http://catholic-dads.blogspot.com/2009/01/out-from-under-impact-of-homosexual.html

The Worm Turns?

It’s funny for an interested observer to watch as the British Roman Catholic bishops are cornered and have to start behaving like...Roman Catholic Bishops. Normally they’re an inoffensive lot, quick to preach on the green agenda and other culturally acceptable things. But now they are having to confront the government over the Sexual Orientation Regulations. Specifically, they are having to point out that as these are currently framed, the Catholic Adoption Agencies in this country will have to close. Whether they would rather compromise and allow the agencies to place children with homosexual couples we will never know. What is certain is that the Vatican, under the leadership of the new Pope, will certainly not condone any such thing. So they are caught between a rock (Peter) and a hard place (Caesar). Caesar is starting to squirm a bit too: will that worm turn?