June 28, 2012

expert reaction to DH consultation on future of HFEA

The Department of Health launched a consultation to assess the pros and cons of scrapping the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) and Human Tissue Authority (HTA).

Dr. Allan Pacey, Chair of the British Fertility Society, said:

“The British Fertility Society is absolutely committed to upholding the principles enshrined in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. However, in today’s difficult economic climate, it is clear that we must take a long hard look at how the fertility sector in the UK is regulated and see whether there are alternative models that can do this more efficiently. Whilst it is under consideration, we currently have no firm view of how this might work, however we will be studying the Government’s proposals carefully and will be consulting with our membership over the summer to formulate a response to the consultation. Improvement in the current process of regulation would be supported by the Society, although change for change sake without clear evidence of benefit would not.”

Professor Sir Robert Winston, Imperial College London, said:

“Sadly, these proposals do nothing to address the really serious issues facing infertile couples – exorbitant charging for IVF services, patients paying for experimental treatments of dubious value, avoidance of regulation through fertility tourism and the failure of proper provision within the NHS.”

Professor Peter Braude, Emeritus Professor of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, King’s College London, said:

“This has been brewing since last year, and follows failed attempts of many professional bodies through parliament to avoid the abolition of the HFEA preferring an efficiency drive and a serious examination of its working methods, which largely is in line with the third option proposed in the consultation. IVF is a complex and controversial area to regulate. Patients are anxious and often require specialist advice and help in a bewildering market. It is hard to see how these tasks simply can be added to the burden of the CQC which has been shown recently to be struggling with its existing load and found wanting so frequently.”

Professor Alison Murdoch, Head of Newcastle Fertility Centre for Life, said:

“I support the favoured government option, particularly in relation to the transfer of research regulation to the HRA. Parliament has rightly decided what is morally acceptable in relation to embryo research and researchers must comply with the law. Thereafter detailed scrutiny of a specific research proposal is best done by those with appropriate experience in the wider context of medical research.”

In relation to clinical work:

“Those clinics providing routine IVF treatment are now regulated by both the CQC and the HFEA. At a time when we are losing nurses from front line medical services to save money, duplication of regulation cannot be justified.”

Sarah Norcross, Director of the Progress Educational Trust, said:

“This consultation provides an exciting opportunity to discuss how fertility treatment and embryo research are regulated in this country, as well as by whom. Given the HFEA’s reported £3.4million cash surplus, it may also be an opportunity for cost savings.”