How parents 'could pick babies' sex

[Sci Medical & Health]

From BBC

Parents undergoing IVF could be allowed to select the sex of their baby under proposals put forward by MPs.

A Commons Science and Technology Committee report said more decisions about fertility treatment should be made by patients and their doctors.

The MPs also called for the regulator, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, to be disbanded.

And they said "taboo" research, such as implanting human cells into animals, should be considered, with regulation.

The report looks at issues across the field of reproductive health.

It said there was no "compelling evidence" to prohibit couples undergoing IVF being able to choose to have a girl or boy if that was what they felt was necessary to "balance out" their family.

Fertility expert Lord Robert Winston said he could not see issues with parents being able to choose their babies' sex, and that the numbers who would want to do so would be very small.

He told BBC Radio 4: "People will not go through IVF to choose the sex of their baby and even if they did it would not in any way, I think, damage the fabric of our society."

The MPs also suggest there should no longer be a need to consider the suitability of parents under "welfare of the child" considerations when approving couples for IVF treatment, because it is discriminatory.

The committee's report also said that decisions about whether to allow embryos to be checked for genetic conditions, or to see if they are a match for a sick sibling- so-called "designer babies" - should be taken out of the hands of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA).

Instead, patients and their doctors should decide if it should be used in their case, under the auspices of a local ethics committee, the report said.

Standards

Committee member Dr Evan Harris said: "This is no different to the way in which clinical decisions are made in other areas.

"We are 15 years down the line with IVF. It should no longer be treated differently."

The report says the HFEA, which currently also oversees the work of fertility clinics and issues licenses for medical cloning research, should be disbanded.

It calls for a new body, a Regulatory Agency for Fertility and Tissues, to be set up in its place which would ensure clinics and laboratories maintained set technical and management standards.

It also says there should be stronger professional regulation, and more government and Parliamentary consideration of ethical and legal issues.

The MPs' report also says controversial areas of fertility research should not be shied away from.

It says the creation of so-called "chimeras", where human cells are placed into an animal foetus, could be useful.

The report also attacks rules to be introduced on April 1 to remove anonymity from sperm and egg donors.

The Science and Technology committee did not unanimously back the report. Five MPs did not attend the meeting where the report was passed, and have called the final report "unbalanced".

'Maintaining safety'

Alison Murdoch, chair of the British Fertility Society said: "Fifteen years ago IVF was novel and not generally accepted. In 2005, nearly 2% of all babies born in the UK are conceived with the help of assisted reproductive technologies.

"It is appropriate, therefore, that regulation is more consistent with that applied to other clinical treatments. The select committee takes us a step further in this direction."

Suzi Leather, chair of the HFEA, said the report made "bold and challenging recommendations".

She said the HFEA was pleased the MPs recognised the necessity for an independent regulator, and added: "The big question for the fertility and research sectors in the future is how we will maintain patient safety, public confidence and minimise risks from developing technologies."

A Department of Health spokesperson said: "We are undertaking a review of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which will include a public consultation later this year.

"We will carefully consider the recommendations of the Science and Technology Committee as part of that review."