The report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction, soon to be published by the Minister for Health, directly tackles the many complex issues in this emotive area. It is to be welcomed.
The commission was set up five years ago, with a mandate to report on possible approaches to the regulation of assisted human reproduction. The areas to be considered in recommending public policy included social, ethical and legal factors.
The commission was established in the context of the great strides made by science in identifying some, though not all, of the causes of infertility and in devising some solutions. The best-known are in vitro fertilisation (IVF) and artificial insemination. In the former the woman's eggs are fertilised with her partner's sperm outside the womb, and then implanted; in the latter the woman's eggs are fertilised in her body by her partner's sperm or that of a donor. There are thousands of Irish children alive today, and a million world-wide, bringing joy to their families who would not exist but for these techniques.
Those who suffer the pain of infertility desperately want as much help as science can offer. The depth of their need can lead to an uncritical embrace for all reproductive technology and can lay them open to exploitation by unscrupulous practitioners, an outcome foreseen by the commission, which recommends a statutory regulatory body and measures to counter commercialisation. These new reproductive techniques present new ethical and legal dilemmas concerning the definition of human life and the need to treat human life and human beings with dignity. These dilemmas are especially challenging in this State where there is a constitutional imperative to protect the life of the "unborn", an entity that is not defined in the Constitution or anywhere else.
Different religious and philosophical outlooks have different answers to many of the questions raised by the possibilities of reproductive medicine. Some advocate an acceptance of a painful reality like infertility. Others see this as a malfunction of the human body that, like other malfunctions, should be amenable to treatment.
The creation of embryos outside the womb, rendered possible by IVF, raises a whole new set of specific issues around the treatment of these embryos, especially those not implanted in a woman's womb. The Medical Council has already accepted it is ethical that they can be implanted in the womb of a woman other than the genetic mother, in an extension of the conception of adoption. More controversial practices include the freezing of these embryos and their ultimate abandonment or destruction, or their use for research that will benefit humanity in other ways.
In providing a strong foundation for the discussion process that is about to begin on these issues, the CAHR has been compassionate and serious and has not shirked difficult questions. And it has put the welfare of children at the heart of its deliberations. It is important that the discussion now proceeds in a similar spirit.