June 28, 2007

experts react to judicial review ruling on the HFEA and Mohammed Taranissi case

Scientists reacted to a High Court ruling that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority had acted illegally in acquiring warrants to search the clinics of fertility doctor Mohammed Taranissi.

Peter Braude, Professor of Obstetrics & Gynaecology, Kings College London, said:

“I am sure that the HFEA had sufficient concern to take such drastic action, and were acting in good faith in the public interest. It is unfortunate that they have been found wanting in dotting the ‘i’s and crossing the ‘t’s.”

Dr Mark Hamilton, Chair of the British Fertility Society, said:

“The British Fertility Society is concerned to hear about the way this case has progressed. The Society supports the principle of regulation of the fertility sector. The regulator needs to be accountable, and it needs to maintain the trust and confidence of the sector. In this case, this has not happened, and the HFEA needs to look hard at how it can regain this trust. The HFEA receives funding from levying fees on clinics, and of course the clinics may effectively be asked to fund this failed action; given the limited NHS support for fertility treatment, this means an additional burden on those who want to have children through assisted conception. The British Fertility Society will be asking the Department of Health to conduct a full investigation.”

Professor Robert Winston, Fertility expert, Imperial College London, said:

“This is further evidence of the complete incompetence of the HFEA and the need for the workings of this organisation to be radically reviewed. This situation will do nothing at all to protect the interests of vulnerable patients. With the loss of this amount of public money, the Chief Executive and previous Chair will presumably need to consider their positions.”

Prof Alison Murdoch, Honorary Clinical Senior Lecturer, International Centre For Life, said:

“The current legislation is under review in Parliament including the proposed regulatory procedures. It is clear that lessons need to be learnt from these events. Good regulation requires there to be trust between the regulator and those being regulated. Something has gone seriously wrong with this trust when the lawyers need to be brought in and it is difficult to see how anyone benefits from this fiasco.”