Embryo experiments 2008 votes

Saviour siblings

In a nutshell

A vote on whether to ban the creation of ‘saviour siblings’, where a child is created specifically to provide tissue for treating a brother or sister who is ill. MPs had liberty to vote according to their conscience.

The details

On 19 May 2008 MPs debated amendments to the Government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The Bill permitted the testing of embryos to create so-called ‘saviour siblings’.

Paragraph 1 of Schedule 2 in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 concerns the granting of licences to provide various treatments such as in vitro fertilisation.1 The 2008 Bill amended this provision to permit embryo testing on various grounds.2 One particular concern was the authorisation of testing for potential ‘saviour siblings’.This would enable the parents of a sick child to have their embryos tested before implantation, to establish whether “the tissue of any resulting child would be compatible with that of [its] sibling”.3

Thus children could be brought to birth specifically with a view to providing tissue with which to treat their sibling in the future.

David Burrowes MP tabled an amendment to ban saviour siblings.4 The amendment was defeated by 342 votes to 163.

How we recorded the vote

  • Voted for a ban on creating saviour siblings in 2008
  • Voted against a ban on creating saviour siblings in 2008
  • Abstained or was absent on the vote for a ban on creating saviour siblings in 2008
  • Abstained deliberately on the vote for a ban on creating saviour siblings in 2008

Animal-human embryos

In a nutshell

A vote on whether to ban the creation of animal-human hybrid embryos. MPs had liberty to vote according to their conscience.

The details

On 19 May 2008 MPs debated amendments to the Government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Clause 4A of the Bill permitted scientists to ‘bring about the creation of a human admixed embryo’ – an embryo which is part-animal, part-human – if they obtain a licence. It also allowed them, under licence, to keep and use such embryos, and to mix human and animal gametes.

Edward Leigh MP tabled an amendment to ban all these practices.5 The amendment was defeated by 335 votes to 176.

How we recorded the vote

  • Voted for a ban on creating animal-human hybrid embryos in 2008
  • Voted against a ban on creating animal-human hybrid embryos in 2008
  • Abstained or was absent for the vote on animal-human hybrid embryos in 2008
  • Abstained deliberately on the vote for a ban on creating animal-human hybrid embryos in 2008

The need for a father

In a nutshell

A vote on whether doctors should be required to take into account the child’s need for a father when deciding whether to give IVF treatment. MPs had liberty to vote according to their conscience.

The details

On 20 May 2008 MPs debated amendments to the Government’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The Bill removed the previous requirement for doctors to take account of “the need of a child for a father” when providing IVF treatment.

Section 13 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 contains requirements for fertility treatments such as IVF. Section 13(5) of the 1990 Act said: “A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child who may be affected by the birth.”6

The Government proposed to replace ‘a father’ with ‘supportive parenting’, thus denigrating the importance of a father in a child’s life and development.7 Iain Duncan Smith MP tabled an amendment to reinstate and clarify the requirement of the 1990 Act, so that it would be compulsory for doctors to consider ‘the need of that child for a father and a mother’.8 However, his amendment was defeated by 294 votes to 219. The Government proposal became law.

How we recorded the vote

  • Voted for keeping the requirement to consider a child’s need for a father before fertility treatment in 2008
  • Voted against keeping the requirement to consider a child’s need for a father before fertility treatment in 2008
  • Abstained or was absent on the vote for keeping the requirement to consider a child’s need for a father before fertility treatment in 2008
  1. 1Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, Schedule 2 (1)
  2. 2Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL], Schedule 2 (3)
  3. 3Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL], Schedule 2 (3), lines 32-34
  4. 4Amendment 4, House of Commons, Committee of the Whole House Proceedings as at 19 May 2008, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
  5. 5House of Commons, Hansard, 19 May 2008, cols 22-23
  6. 6Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, Section 13 (5)
  7. 7Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [HL], Section 14 (2)(b)
  8. 8Amendment 21, House of Commons, Committee of the Whole House Proceedings as at 20 May 2008, Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]