PROTECTING HUMAN EMBRYOS

The way we treat the most vulnerable among us is a measure

of how civilised we are as a society. As of now, human embryos
outside the mother have no law protecting them. The Government
must meet this challenge by bringing in a law that cherishes and
protects human life at its most fragile beginnings.

prol i fe campaign
TM
DURING HURRICANE KATRINA, CANISTERS FROM AN ASSISTED HUMAN
REPRODUCTION CLINIC CONTAINING FROZEN EMBRYOS WERE RESCUED FROM
A FLOODED HOSPITAL IN NEW ORLEANS. ONE EMBRYO WAS TRANSFERRED
INTO HIS MOTHER AND LATER BORN. HIS NAME IS NOAH BENTON MARKHAM.
IN LATER YEARS, IF NOAH LOOKS BACK AND ASKS HIMSELF - WAS IT HE WHO
WAS RESCUED THAT DAY? WAS IT HIS LIFE THAT WAS SAVED? – THERE IS ONLY
ONE ANSWER HE CAN GIVE, ‘OF COURSE IT WAS!’
LEGISLATION IS NEEDED TO
PROTECT HUMAN EMBRYOS
› WHY A NEW LAW IS URGENTLY NEEDED
The Constitution protects human embryos in their mother’s womb.
But in December 2009, the Supreme Court ruled in the R-v-R
case that Article 40.3.3 does not protect human embryos outside
the mother.1 They may be destroyed with legal impunity. The
Government and the Oireachtas must bring in a new law to protect
them, as in some EU countries like Italy and Germany.2
› THE HUMAN EMBRYO IS ALREADY ONE
OF US
Each one of us started life as an embryo. When the father’s sperm
fuses with the mother’s egg, a new human life begins. Although
very tiny, this new human being is not just a potential life – it is
already an actual human life with potential, unquestionably alive,
unquestionably human. Human embryos outside the mother should
be entitled to protection for their lives from this first moment.3
› THIS IS AN EQUAL RIGHTS ISSUE
Democracy means respecting the equal dignity of every human
being, including, not excluding, human embryos outside the mother.
We are equal before the law in our right to life – they should be too.
And like us, their other rights are based on this first fundamental
right.4
13
› THE IRISH PEOPLE SUPPORT A LAW
TO PROTECT EMBRYOS
The latest research by Millward Brown Lansdowne in 2010 found
substantial majority support for legislation to protect human
embryos.5
> In the poll conducted just after the Supreme Court decision in
R -v- R, of those who expressed an opinion, 83% thought the
Government should introduce a law to protect embryos from
destruction in assisted human reproduction or research.
› THE CAHR REPORT IS NO BASIS FOR A
LAW TO PROTECT EMBRYOS
Nearly ten years ago, the Government set up the Commission on
Assisted Human Reproduction (CAHR) to examine how assisted
human reproduction in Ireland should be regulated. It issued its
Report in 2005. The Government is currently drawing up legislation
in response to R -v- R and has signalled its intention to base the
new law on this Report.
> It recommended legalising research that would destroy living
human embryos.6
> Only one of the 25 CAHR Members objected.
This shows the bias against the pro-life view in the Government-
appointed membership of CAHR, despite widespread public
support for protecting embryos.
> Some of the Report’s recommendations have been overtaken
by recent scientific breakthrough, especially in adult stem cell
research.7
From an ethical and scientific standpoint, the CAHR Report is
certainly no basis for legislation to protect human embryos.
› PROTECTING HUMAN EMBRYOS IN › RECOMMENDATIONS
ASSISTED HUMAN REPRODUCTION The following recommendations refer solely to human embryos
outside the mother from the start of fertilisation.
The Supreme Court ruling in R -v- R leaves human embryos outside
the mother with no legal protection. R and R were a married couple The Pro-Life Campaign calls for a law -
who separated. They had embryos by assisted human reproduction
that were frozen and stored. The mother asked that they be
> To protect human embryos outside the mother from deliberate
destruction, discarding or exposure to injury in assisted human
transferred to her womb so she could have another child. The
father refused so the case came to court. reproduction, research or otherwise.
Because the Supreme Court ruled that embryos outside the mother
> To adopt a restrictive ethical regulatory framework for assisted
human reproduction, ruling out embryo freezing given its lethal
are not protected as ‘unborn’ under Article 40.3.3, a new law is
needed to protect their lives in assisted human reproduction, as threats to the life of the embryo.
some EU jurisdictions have done. > To rule out reproductive and therapeutic cloning.
> To exclude importing cells or tissues obtained by destroying
› PROTECTING HUMAN EMBRYOS IN human embryos, or cell lines cultured from them, and patenting
RESEARCH of elements or processes deriving from embryo destruction.
> To promote Ireland as an international hub of excellence for the
The ruling also leaves embryos outside the mother at risk of
adult stem cell research that is already achieving breakthroughs in
destruction in research. Without a new law to protect them, they
the treatment of medical conditions.
will not be treated with respect; they will be destroyed in huge
numbers. British laws legalised
>C loning embryos for research, › A WIN-WIN SOLUTION FOR ETHICS AND
SCIENCE
> Creating embryos that are part animal part-human
> Creating ‘saviour siblings’, embryos picked to be born because
they have something needed by a born child with a serious These recommendations are the minimum protection a democratic
medical condition. society owes human embryos outside the mother. It is possible to
bring in a law that cherishes and protects human life at its most
Principal campaigner for the British laws, Baroness Mary Warnock, fragile stage while at the same time promoting adult stem cell
admitted it is hypocritical to speak of respecting human embryos research that is bringing in medical breakthroughs. We must not
when one is destroying them and pouring them down the sink.8 pass over this opportunity to unite ethics and science and strive for
a win-win solution that cherishes and protects all human life.
› MAKING IRELAND A CENTRE OF
EXCELLENCE FOR ADULT STEM CELL
RESEARCH
> Adult stem cell research does not involve destruction of
human embryos.9
> Treatments based on it do not carry the heightened risk of
tumours associated with stem cells from embryos, or the risk of
the patient’s body ‘rejecting’ them where the stem cells are from
the patient’s own body.
> Adult stem cell research attracts investment because it is
producing significant breakthroughs in the management and
treatment of medical conditions.10
Ireland should promote itself as a centre of excellence for adult
stem cell research, putting in place incentives and infrastructure to
attract top talent.11
‘OUTSIDE THE WOMB, THEY HAVE THE SAME QUALITIES AS THEY WOULD HAVE
IN THE WOMB. THAT IS WHY THEY ARE VIABLE EMBRYOS FOR IMPLANTATION
WITH A VIEW TO THE BIRTH OF A CHILD.’
12
Mr Justice John Murray, Chief Justice
in reference to human embryos outside
the mother in his judgment in R -v- R

FOOTNOTES
1 / Roche -v- Roche & ors, [2009] IESC 82, 15/12/2009, Murray C.J., Denham J.,
Hardiman J., Geoghegan J., Fennelly J. Supreme Court Record Number: 469/06 &
59/07. High Court Record Number: 2004 9792 p.
2 / Italy: Law 40 of 2004 on Medically Assisted Reproduction. Germany: Embryo
Protection Act, 1990
3 / G. F. Whyte, ‘Reservation in relation to recommendations concerning the embryo’,
Report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction, Government Publications,
Dublin, 2005, pp. 73-76
4 / Other aspects of the rights and welfare of the embryos also need to be addressed,
and provisions in other jurisdictions suggest additional protections that could be included
in the legislation. The Pro-Life Campaign’s recommendations focus solely on what is
needed to protect the life of the human embryo outside the mother.
5 / Attitudes to Right to Life Issues: Prepared for Pro-Life Campaign, Millward Brown
Lansdowne, 16th February 2010, Dublin. These findings are consistent with similar polls
conducted in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, and 2009.
6 / Report of the Commission on Assisted Human Reproduction, Stationery Office,
Dublin, 2005, pp. xvi, xvii
7 / Warren et al., Highly Efficient Reprogramming to Pluripotency and Directed
Differentiation of Human Cells with Synthetic Modified mRNA, Cell Stem Cell (2010)
104 Lower Baggot Street
Dublin 2, Ireland
01 6629275
info@prolifecampaign.ie
www.prolifecampaign.ie
8 / Stem Cell Research: Select Committee Report, House of Lords, 5th December 2002:
Column 1327
9 / For example, Paolo Rama, Stanislav Matuska, Giorgio Paganoni, Alessandra Spinelli,
Michele De Luca and Graziella Pellegrini Limbal Stem-Cell Therapy and Long-Term
Corneal Regeneration, N Engl J Med; 363:147-155, July 2010.
10 / ‘California’s Proposition 71 Failure’, Investor’s Business Daily, IDB Editorials.
12th January 2010
11 / Colin McGuckin, professor of regenerative medicine at Newcastle University and an
expert in adult stem cells, announced he was moving to a university in France because in
the UK they ‘were prioritising embryonic stem-cell research above work with adult stem
cells, despite the more immediate clinical benefits offered’ by adult stem cell research.
‘You would barely know adult stems cells exist’, Times Higher Education, 23 October
2008.
12 / Murray CJ, in Roche -v- Roche & ors
13 / Embryo, A Defence of Human Life, Robert P. George and Christopher Tollefsen,
Doubleday, New York, 2008, p.2.