EMBRYOLOGY: STEM CELL RESEARCH
15th December 2000
Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield):
This has been a powerful and important debate. Sometimes I thought I was in the Synod, not the Chamber, and that you, Madam Deputy Speaker, were the Archbishop of Canterbury, presiding over a philosophical, theological and ethical debate.
I was disappointed by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg). She said with great passion and great skill everything that I wanted to say, and far better than I could.
There has been considerable discussion about whether a blastocyst, which is the body on which the experimentation would take place, has a soul. If it were accepted that it does not, we would not be having the debate. I think that the House is united in its belief that if we can take any steps to enable scientists and doctors to alleviate suffering, we should do so without hesitation.
The thought that we can undertake experimentation on adult stem cells at this early stage instead of doing so on embryonic stem cells is mere wishful thinking. If there were not voices saying that it is far too soon to be able to undertake that sort of experimentation, we would not be having the debate. I have read the information that has been given us and I shall quote from the Wellcome research trust. It states that it is not clear whether the full range of cell types that are required for treatments could eventually be generated from these sources alone.
That is a reference to stem cells. It adds:
The pluripotency of embryonic stem cells means that they are likely to progress research more rapidly and lead to greater human benefits than adult stem cells.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) said that he would prefer to see the use of adult stem cells. Later, when he was questioned, he admitted that if it transpired that adult stem cells could not be used, perhaps he would accept that embryonic stem cells would have to be used instead to develop therapies for curing a number of disfunctions. My hon. Friend holds especially strong views on these matters, and I think his response demonstrates that the issue is not one of black and white. There is a fine balance that must be weighed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox), who speaks from the Opposition Front Bench, rightly said that it is important to have an informed debate. The House has shown itself at its best today. We have had an informed debate in the absence of party politics. It has been entirely about moral, ethical and medical issues.
My hon. Friend also said that it is important not be alarmist. Many outside have been alarmist. Even today, we have heard hon. Members say that stem cell research could lead on to further experimentation, some of which would be illegal; but we should never use the argument that we can never undertake any experimentation for the better good of humanity if it might lead to research that could damage society. That would be to use what the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) called the thin end of the wedge argument: where would that lead? If we adopted that position, there would never be change in society.
Last week I had dinner with a canon from Lichfield cathedral. Over dinner, after several glasses of good red wine from the House of Commons, we discussed embryology. He said, and I agree, that one must always have a balance on such issues. When discussing moral and ethical matters, it is all too easy to say that there is a clear black and a clear white, a clear good and a clear evil. There is a fine balance to be weighed up for the greater good.
I asked my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough whether he knew whether the saying that God helps those who help themselves was from the Bible or just a general proverb. Surprisingly, he was not able to help me, but I believe that it is a truism. I believe that we have been put on earth as a test, perhaps to see how we behave towards our fellow human beings. God has given us an intellect, which I believe should be used for the greater good. If that means experimentation such as stem cell research for the greater good, we should go ahead and undertake it.
The balance is not quite as fine as some hon. Members have tried to make out. I do not believe that a non- sentient, non-thinking being such as a blastocyst--a clump of four, eight or 16 cells--is an intelligent being with a soul. As I said earlier, such a debate is better held in a synod than in Parliament.
Dr. Fox: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Will he reconsider his last point--that if research is for the greater good, it should go ahead? Does he believe that there is a moral bottom line in such a utilitarian argument, and if so, what is it?
Mr. Fabricant: I went on to say--perhaps my hon. Friend was distracted--that if we are to undertake research for the greater good, it must not be at the expense of human or sentient beings. It may be arguable, but my point is that a blastocyst is not a sentient being. I believe that a blastocyst is not a human being or even, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough tried to argue, a sub-human being.
For that reason I say to my hon. Friend the Member for Woodspring that the balance is far from fine. It is heavily in favour of our undertaking such research. My hon. Friend has his own moral views, for which I respect him.
I shall try to make clear to the House why we undertake such research. It will lead to cures as well as treatments for degenerative cell diseases. I mentioned in an intervention that the research could lead to a cure for diabetes. How many of those in the Chamber, I wonder, have been touched by diabetes, either because they have it themselves or, as in my case, because they have friends who have diabetes? There are 1.4 million people who need to take regular daily injections. A further 2 million to 3 million people suffer to a degree from diabetes and, thankfully, do not have to take injections, but they have to control their diets. It is not just that. Sadly, as we know, diabetes, leads to thrombosis which, in turn, can lead to limb amputation and degenerative eye disorders which may cause blindness. Diabetes is a serious and damaging disease.
At present, all we can do is treat diabetes by giving doses of insulin which, by the very nature of the way in which they are administered, are always approximate. Just imagine what would happen if we could find a cure for diabetes and restore someone to normality. What an improvement that would bring to many people's quality of life. The research that we are debating could lead to cures for macular degeneration in the eyes, leukaemia, sickle cell anaemia--and other immuno-deficiencies--and spinal injury problems. It could even lead to finding a way of producing squamous epithelium skin for the cure and treatment of burns and other skin wounds. It could lead to cures for cirrhosis, hepatitis, heart disease, muscular injuries, rheumatoid arthritis, osteoarthritis, osteoporosis and other bone and cartilage injuries.
The prize is too great for us to ignore. If we use the argument that we should not go ahead and begin the research, we would not be doing justice to the people whom we represent in Parliament. The most profound and moral issues that we are debating today are not simply black and white issues of good and evil. Our debate is an example of the way in which we must weigh the fine balance between moral, ethical and theological issues, as I said earlier. Parliament must make a difficult decision and we can only vote according to our conscience.
I, for one, believe that the alleviation of unnecessary suffering and prevention of death are moral and theological imperatives. I do not believe that a blastocyst of undifferentiated cells is a human being. Quite simply, the balance of the argument falls heavily in favour of supporting the regulations that we shall debate on Tuesday night.
