select search filters
briefings
roundups & rapid reactions
Fiona fox's blog
HFEA members meet to discuss a range of issues relating to assisted reproduction, embryo research and our role as a regulator. Topics include: women donating eggs for research; embryo screening for breast cancer and similar conditions; inspection programme and incident monitoring.
Dr Jess Buxton, Progress Educational Trust, said:
“We welcome the HFEA committee’s recommendation to allow couples to test IVF embryos to avoid passing on cancer susceptibility genes. This would mean that families affected by hereditary cancer would have some control over the future health of their children. Although cancer can be tackled using surgery, radiation and toxic chemicals, embryo testing would offer a way for some parents to cut the chances of their children having to endure the illness or its treatment.”
Progress Educational Trust is a UK charity dedicated to informing and encouraging public debate about genetics and reproduction.
British Fertility Society views on PGD and embryo screening for breast cancer and similar conditions: “Major advances have occurred in our understanding of genetic predisposition to diseases such as cancer. New techniques using in vitro fertilisation (IVF) now bring to the table the possibility of screening embryos for predisposition to disorders that can have a devastating effect on the individuals and families concerned. This raises complex ethical questions. Decisions on the use of screening techniques need to take account of advances in the treatment of many diseases, as well as the efficacy of pre-implantation genetic diagnosis. The British Fertility Society, representing many working in IVF units throughout the country, is pleased to work with the HFEA in determining policy in this exciting and increasingly important area of healthcare.”
James Lawford-Davies, a solicitor specialising in reproductive and genetic technology at Bevan Brittan LLP in London, said:
“The House of Lords decision in the Hashmi case confirmed that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 gives the HFEA a broad discretion in deciding whether or not to licence PGD and tissue typing. Whilst they may decide that PGD for inherited susceptibility to cancer should not be permitted on ethical or other grounds, there is no legal reason why they should not allow it to go ahead.”
Dr Alan Thornhill, Scientific Director, London Fertility Clinic, said:
“At present, it is reasonable to use preimplantation diagnosis to test for some inherited cancers after appropriate pre-treatment review and counseling by clinical geneticists. Advances in cancer genetics and techniques such as whole genome amplification, will increase the number of cancer predispositions and other diseases that can be tested within a single embryonic cell. I am confident that fully informed patients working together with their doctors will make sensible choices regarding the use of PGD technology to help them to have healthy children.”
Professor Alison Murdoch, Professor of Reproductive Medicine, International Centre for Life, Newcastle, said:
“We need consistency between the regulations for postimplantation testing and preimplantation testing. Ultimately it must be the choice of the family who understand and have to live with the problem.”
Dr Simon Fishel, Managing Director, CARE Fertility Group, said:
“Medical health is as important to individuals – arguably more so – as it is to society at large. PGD offers choice and opportunity for many individuals and families, but, importantly, in this country only in the context of strict regulation. It is not a ‘slippery slope’ but a genuine, often the only healthcare option for many. CARE Fertility can now offer UK patients the unique opportunity to screen more than 200 genetic diseases, in the context of professional counseling, and appropriate medical and scientific consultation. If families would wish to eliminate the threat of serious cancer from their family they should be at liberty to do so. This would also provide important psychological relief for these families; and in the context of our society’s conventional medical practice, the prevention of disease is not only a dignified goal but there would be significant gains both economically and operationally to the National Health Service.”
Dr Richard Kennedy, Former Chair of the British Fertility Society, said:
“Research into the genetics of cancer is a rapidly developing area and as new knowledge is gained associating certain genes with the development of cancer, so the question of PGD in such cases arises. We should also be mindful of the fact that increasingly successful strategies for the treatment of these cancers are emerging. Therefore the debate on the threshold of abnormality in the fetus that warrants selection at pre-implantation stage still exists. Nevertheless as the precision and success rates of PGD increase so the choice of avoiding the threat and consequences of cancer becomes legitimate. Indeed, PGD may be become a more cost effective option for society and the health economy.”
Professor Thomas Baldwin, Professor Philosophy at the University of York, said:
“I strongly support the recommendation to the HFEA that the use of PGD be extended to genetic conditions which confer susceptibility to cancer (such as the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes). This is an important development which will enable families to avoid the significant risk of passing on these devastating disorders to their children.”