 |
 |
Bioethics Panel Calls for Ban on Radical Reproductive Procedures By Rick Weiss Washington Post Staff Writer Friday, January 16, 2004; Page A02 A presidentially appointed bioethics commission yesterday approved near-final wording for its highly anticipated report on human reproductive technologies, calling for enhanced professional guidelines for fertility doctors and a federal ban on certain radical procedures, such as creating animal-human hybrids. But the report stops short of recommending broad new regulations relating to baby making, which the fertility industry had feared and fought against. The report, "Biotechnologies Touching the Beginnings of Human Life," will be issued by the President's Council on Bioethics, a panel of scholars and scientists commissioned by President Bush in 2001 and chaired by University of Chicago scientist-philosopher Leon Kass. The council has previously addressed such intensely controversial issues as human embryonic stem cell research and cloning. But its nine-month foray into human reproductive technologies -- a field that encompasses not only basic research but also a medical specialty that performs 100,000 fertility procedures a year at a cost of about $1 billion -- took the group through especially treacherous political, ethical and economic terrain. Initial discussions by the council last summer left many fertility specialists convinced the council was, as some said then, "out to get us." Those fears were stoked by recent writings by Kass and other council members expressing grave reservations about the fate of the human race should it continue to tinker with its embryonic roots. In fact, the council did discuss at length the fertility industry's relatively unregulated status. Concerns were raised about the "slippery slope" that could lead fertility doctors -- or at least a few rogues among them -- to try increasingly far-reaching techniques to achieve pregnancies, at the risk of producing grotesque mistakes. Several council members were critical of the profession for not proving the safety of its techniques before trying them in women. Early versions of the report called for far more public disclosure of the fates of all embryos made in fertility clinics as well as detailed tracking of the health of all babies born by in vitro fertilization (IVF) and other techniques. In the latest draft, however, those provisions have been dropped, in part because of concerns that systematic tracking of IVF children would constitute an invasion of their privacy and could stigmatize them. Instead, the council calls for greater attention to professional ethics -- including better informed consent for women about the risks and costs of fertility treatments -- and a federally funded and voluntary study of the health of IVF children. Initial versions of the report also contained politically divisive language, now removed. Instead of using the word "embryo," for example, early drafts used phrases such as "child to be" or "future child." All told, Kass said, the draft approved yesterday -- which now faces only minor edits before being released -- is a "modest" document but one that the nation and Congress should be able to get behind. "It's a community expression of boundaries," Kass said, "and shifts the burden of persuasion to the innovators who want to cross those boundaries." Beyond its call for professional reforms, the council recommends that Congress at least temporarily prohibit the gestation of human embryos in animal wombs and the fertilization of human eggs with animal sperm, and vice versa. It also asks Congress to outlaw any transfer of an IVF embryo to a woman's womb for any purpose other than to produce a live-born child -- a measure aimed at preventing the "farming" of fetuses for body parts. And the draft calls for a ban on the creation of human embryos from cells obtained from a human fetus -- a technique now technically feasible that could lead to the birth of a child whose parent was never born. "There is a lot to like in this report, and we certainly are pleased to have Dr. Kass and his colleagues join our longtime call for additional federally funded research in this area," said Sean Tipton, a spokesman for the American Society for Reproductive Medicine, which represents fertility doctors and lobbied the council hard. Congress has long blocked federal spending on human embryo research, leaving it to fertility clinics to finance their own studies. And federal funding for follow-ups of U.S.-born IVF children has been minimal. The American Infertility Association, representing fertility patients and families, applauded the revised draft, saying in a statement that it was "relieved" the council had decided not to recommend new restrictions on egg and sperm donation or surrogacy arrangements. SOURCE: The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A21071-2004Jan15.html Reference: The President's Council on Bioethics: http://www.bioethics.gov/ The President's Council on Bioethics: Biotechnology and Public Policy Index http://www.bioethics.gov/topics/biotech_index.html * * * ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn