Embryo banking splits public opinion

Like with most topics involving ethics, the subject of using embryos for research purposes has always been widely contested with divergent ethical and scientific views being expressed. These widespread differences exist across Europe and are highlighted by the different regulations countries impose involving the research and storage of embryos. This well-established debate is being taken to a new level as the British government’s legal and ethical experts will decide this July whether families will be allowed to bank embryos to create personalized treatments for their families. This latest proposal has brought new questions to light. Should couples be allowed to bank embryos for the sole intention of becoming ‘body repair kits’? Who is more important: an old man dying of a terminal illness or a five-day-old embryo that has been frozen for three years?

Until now, embryos in Britain can only be banked for the purpose of creating life, but the Government’s fertility watchdog, the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority, have announced proposals to allow IVF to take place to use embryo stem cells as treatment for degenerative diseases. The research, which many consider a medical breakthrough, is still in its early stages, but it is believed that they will be curing conditions such as Alzheimer’s and cancer within ten years.

The cost of banking embryos as spare parts for the body is one of the primary issues raised by opponents who argue that the process is scientifically unsound. For example, in the US, diabetes is a condition which stem cell research there is aiming to cure. However, according to Kelly Hollowell, a molecular and cellular pharmacologist and patient lawyer, the cost to treat the 17 million diabetics in the US would be astronomical as each patient would require between 50 to 100 female eggs, costing between $100,000 to $200,000. Hollowell also believes that by collecting embryos as ‘investments’ would inevitably lead to the exploitation of women, especially poorer women, who would resort to selling their eggs. Kelly Hollowell said:

“The scientific data on embryonic stem cell research simply does not support continued investment in research. Federal funding should not be used for research that many Americans know is morally wrong and scientifically unsound, making banking embryos for stem cell research a bad investment.”

Paul Tully, general secretary for the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children in the UK, reiterates Hollowell’s stance, stating:

image from www.newhopefertility.com

Although many Americans are of a similar opinion that banking embryos would be a bad investment financially, a company in the US is already offering the service to store embryos as a body repair kit, and who have described it as an investment for the future.

In Europe, opinions are equally as divided and with the cultural diversity Europe comprises, it is hardly surprising that the different countries in the European Union do not adhere to consistent policies and that a consensus is unlikely. Under current laws, some countries, like the UK, do not inhibit the number of embryos created and consequently there remain millions of ‘spare’ frozen embryos stored throughout Europe, the future of which remains uncertain. In the Netherlands, embryonic research is permitted but only under very strict conditions and therefore surplus embryos do not routinely exist. Similarly in Germany, due to the law allowing only a few eggs to be fertilized at once, excess embryos do not fill freezers on German soil. Whilst supporters of embryonic research encourage using spare embryos to assist the world of science and medicine, some challengers believe Germany’s approach is best as there are fewer embryos to discard of. Although in practice, different laws within the EU may prove advantageous as by exploiting diverse approaches more ground will be covered and a greater understanding of this much contested subject may be achieved.

Laws stating the amount of time an embryo can be banked for also vary from country to country. This difference was highlighted over a decade ago when nearly 4,000 embryos were destroyed in Britain to comply with the five year storage deadline. In October this year, Great Britain will allow embryos to be stored for 55 years as opposed to the current five year maximum, meaning long-term banking could become a reality.

Whilst many see using embryos for research purposes as profoundly unethical, others believe that if they could help save lives using embryos as spare parts, then they are essential to the development of medicine. Wendy Peters is a supporter of using embryos in this way. Mrs. Peters underwent IVF several years ago to try and conceive a baby and unfortunately had no joy. She commented:

“If embryos can be used to prolong or improve life then I think they should. I went through years of painful and expensive IVF to achieve absolutely nothing. A life is not a life until a baby is born and once a life is created we should do everything in our power to lengthen a life.”

Gabrielle Pickard for RT