The UK has been involved in a rather intense political discussion about making changes to the country’s Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority bill. Stem cells, chimeras, cloning and more all fall under this law. Prime Minister Gordon Brown announced this week that there would be a “free” vote on the bill in May (MPs would be allowed to vote against the direction of their party). Looking ahead to that vote, the Guardian’s Aida Edemariam has put together a comprehensive breakdown of the issues and where various interests stand on them. Here’s a clip:
The human fertilisation and embryos bill is among the most emotive and divisive bills to have come to parliament since its decision to enter the Iraq war. Cabinet ministers – until Gordon Brown allowed, this week, a free vote – indicated they might have to resign rather than vote for it. Rationalists may claim that the bill is simply catching up with the scientific developments of the past few years, but where the very tissues of human life are concerned, nothing is that simple. The science involved is so advanced that, like it or not, the nitty-gritty of the bill rubs up against some of the most fundamental philosophical questions there are: at what point can life be said to exist? What choices can be exercised at that point, and who gets to exercise them? Should we go to infinite lengths to cure illness, or is it sometimes more ethical to accept defeat? What does it mean to be a parent? What if there is only one parent? What if there are three? What does it mean to be a child? What does it mean to be human?
-Greg Dahlmann