July 31, 2007

response to scrutiny committee report on the Human Tissue and Embryology draft bill

Professor Peter Braude, Head of Department of Women’s Health, King’s College London, said:

“I am so pleased to see that after a thorough consideration of the evidence, the scrutiny committee have agreed that the establishment of RATE is unnecessary and should be abandoned. The Public knows the remit of the HFEA and will soon know what the HTA does as well. This reprieve may give the HFEA the breathing space to re-establish its good reputation and confidence with patients and the profession so dented recently. It also gives the opportunity for joined up working between the two organisations and the chance of separating policy-making from inspection.

“The recommendation that the Government takes steps to ensure PCTs and Trusts implement NICE guidelines (three cycles of IVF including freezing cycles) is a welcome step towards appropriately funded treatment for infertile patients in the UK. Perhaps the Minister will consider a National Service Framework for Infertility Services which will end the patchy and unfairly distributed fertility care in this country, and the drive for most patients to have to seek help through the private sector.”

Dr Stephen Minger, Stem Cell Biologist, Kings College London, said:

“I’m generally very happy with the findings of the joint committee particularly the architecture of “permitted regulation” – it seems eminently pragmatic, practical and capable of responding to new advances in science without the need to constantly go back to primarily regulation. Hopefully the Government will take heed of this, specifically in the area of interspecies embryos. I also welcome their opposition to the merger of the HFEA and the HTA into RATE and their acknowledgment of the difficult role the HFEA plays in regulating both reproductive medicine and embryo research.”

Professor Alison Murdoch, Professor of Reproductive Medicine, Newcastle Fertility Centre at Life, said:

“In the discussions about regulation, it is often forgotten that the major stakeholders are the infertile patients and the providers of their treatments. For them, the most important practical issue is the accountability and remit of the new regulatory body, not what it is called. After all, they pay for it. Other issues e.g. sex selection, saviour siblings and the creation of hybrids are irrelevant. An advantage of the proposed major reorganisation of regulation under RATE, was that it forced a rethink of the regulatory body. Abandoning RATE must not mean that ‘status quo’ is retained. If the government accept the Committee recommendations and keep the HFEA, then they must take on board the other recommendations. These include,

•,Bioethical policy decisions should be made be an accountable body such as the proposed joint bioethics committee. i.e. the HFEA does not make policy decisions. (295).
•,Legislation should provide a permissive framework such that it does not fetter the introduction of new technologies as they develop and as social views change. (296)
•,The bureaucratic burden and cost of regulation for fertility treatment is not defensible and must be reviewed. It is welcomed that the report recommends that the stakeholders play a key role in looking for ways to achieve these improvements. Regulation must be evidence based, accountable and cost-effective. (297)
•,Duplication of regulation must be eliminated. (298)
•,NICE guidelines for the provision of treatment must be implemented so that fertility treatment is brought into mainstream medical practice and its associated regulation. (302)”