Is the Church right on hybrid embryos?

Following the government's announcement of its plans to update the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act to allow scientists to create human animal hybrid embryos to develop stem cells for medical research, a debate on the ethics of such a policy has been raging. The Catholic Church in Scotland has denounced the prospective legislation as immoral whilst an array of medical charities have vociferously defended it, and the potentially massive medical benefits it could deliver, with Lord Winston weighing in today with accusations that the Catholic Church has been misleading the public on the issue.

A secondary issue causing much controversy is also whether or not MPs should be given a free vote on the proposals when they go through the Commons. Gordon Brown has come under extreme pressure to remove the whip for the vote and allow MPs, especially those for whom the bill presents a religious or ethical dilemna, as David Cameron and Nick Clegg have already pledged to do.

The aim of the legislation, as I understand it, is to allow scientists to take advantage of the ubiquity of animal embryos and replace the nuclei with human cells, such as skin cells. The embryos mature, thus converting the skin cells into stem cells that can be used for ground-breaking research that will hopefully provide treatments for a range of diseases and conditions such as Parkinsons and Alzheimers. In 2000, the goverment originally agreed to ban the development of such embryos on the advice of the Chief Medical Officer. Clearly, Gordon Brown has now decided to reverse this decision and explore the potential of stem cell research.

As I write this, I am struggling to understand the position the Church has taken on this issue - and I say this as someone who has consistently agreed with the Vatican's position on abortion and euthanasia, albeit for different reasons. I too would consider the development of such embryos immoral if they were to be matured to term - if that were even possible - but this is not the case. Rather, the embryo would be be destroyed after a maximum of 14 days. As they are not the product of human fertilisation, the anti-abortion argument can hardly hold as long as the Church continues to have no problem with killing fully developed animals for food. Furthermore, allowing scientists to create hybrid embryos will deter them from using fully human embryos for the same purpose which, for me, presents a very real ethical dilemna.

Most importantly though we must remind ourselves that scientists pioneering this research aren't just looking for a new toy to play with or to test the boundaries of human morality at their leisure. Although any rhetoric, whether that of a scientist, a priest or a politician, must always be taken with a pinch of salt, it very much appears that Stem cell research is our best bet yet for curing debilitating and ultimately terminal illnesses. In other words we are talking about people's lives. My grandfather died of Motor Neurone Disease, enduring a torturous six years of decline, losing first the ability to walk and eventually even the ability to swallow. If, on the day of his death, I had learnt that my government had tried to pass legislation that would help save him, but was held back by the musings of a Cardinal and the recalcitrance of a reactionary Church, I would be furious.

This brings me finally to the issue of whether or not Gordon Brown should give Labour MPs a free vote. Although I have never warmed to the idea of the 'whip' in the first place - if MPs are to be bound to vote a certain way on any issue, it should be by the constituents they represent and not their party leader - there can be no doubting its instrumentality in pushing through government policy. The conventional wisdom is that MPs should be allowed a free vote on issues of conscience where the subject of the bill before the Commons directly conflicts with their own core beliefs. Not only do leaders who rebuke this wisdom attract severe criticism for their decision, the can also end up with egg on their face should a handful of rebels decide to ignore the whip regardless. Doubtless this will be the only factor that may motivate the Prime Minister to give in to the mounting pressure and grant his MPs the free vote they are clambering for.

As for those MPs who do vote on conscience, particularly those sympathetic towards the position of the Catholic Church in Scotland, I can only hope that the core beliefs of the people they represent to Parliament factor in to their decision as much as their own. I also hope they accept that should they vote against, the subsequent deaths of those suffering from terminal illnesses, who could potentially have been spared by the future development of a viable Stem Cell treatment, will too be forever ingrained in their conscience.