Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill

Letter to MP Andrew Smith
18 May 2008


Dear Andrew Smith,

*** Urgent business: Embryology Bill ***

Thank you for your continued and conscientious work representing your constituents in Parliament.

I am writing regarding key votes in the Embryology Bill over the next couple of days. I believe it to be fortuitous that Labour MPs have been given a free vote on the key conscience issues and gives Labour MPs the opportunity to demonstrate that they are listening to their constituents at a difficult time politically. I write to request that you vote according to the views of the majority of the UK public with respect to the following four issues.


1. Human-animal embryos
The creation of such entities crosses a moral rubicon, the Bill as it stands permitting the creation of hybrids from 99% to 50% 'human'. The critical issue is in the notion of an entity being 'less than human' and the risk to human dignity/rights that this category poses. Furthermore, the scientific value of such an 'advance' is suspect. All the medical benefits to date have come from ethically non-controversial adult stem cells, and the commercially-exciting possibility of hybrids will divert funds and attention from this proven fruitful avenue. Please vote against.

2. 'Saviour siblings'
The main problem with this is the notion that a child is created as a means (to help a sibling) and not as an ends (for the child itself). This is bound to impact the 'saviour's' sense of value. Other problems are those of either moral pressure to donate the relevant organ once old enough to consent (which will have health risks associated), or the prospect of taking tissue without any consent at all. Please vote against.

3. No need for a father
There is mounting evidence that the best environment in which to bring up a child is with its biological (male and female) parents, each having a unique contribution to make. The adverse social consequences of fatherlessness are widely acknowledged and this Bill sets out to exacerbate the situation. It also sends out a clear message that fathers are not important and will increase both the irresponsibility of some young men as regards producing progeny and decrease their sense of value as fathers. Crucial to the issue is the right of the child to have a father, which is more fundamental than that of the potential parent to have a child. Please vote in favour of the need for a father.

4. Abortion liberalisation
It is clearly ridiculous that in one part of a hospital doctors battle to save a 22 week old fetus born prematurely and in another part deliberately kill another. Social abortion is out of control in this country and needs to be more tightly regulated, not less. The legal limit should be brought down to 20 weeks or less for 'social' abortions. Women should be counselled about the adverse consequences of abortion (and the Royal Colleges recognise that there are many such effects, e.g. the risk of mental illness) and so be able to give fully informed consent to abortion. Please vote against liberalisation of abortion.


I realise that these are all controversial issues on which there is very little consensus. Speaking as a medical doctor keen to treat illnesses and relieve suffering, and as someone also trained in theology, I appreciate many of the nuances and the personal dilemmas. But a principle that I - and anyone else who appreciates the enormous moral significance of these issues - relies on is one of caution. Could I respectfully urge you to act similarly? If these embryos really are humans, how can we justify what we are doing to them? If we are approving the commodification of babies, the devaluing of human life, and encouraging in our society the breakdown of the family (well established as the basic and necessary socio-economic unit in all human civilisations that have flourished), how can these ever be costs worth the supposed benefits?

I urge you please to take this opportunity to vote as requested above on behalf of the majority of your constituents and in line with the moral norms that have held sway across cultures and for millennia, for the good of humanity.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Jonathan L Mobey
MRCGP BM BCh DRCOG MA(Cantab) MA(Oxon)

Fight discrimination but safeguard freedom

Letter to Andrew Smith MP
18 March 2007


Dear Mr Smith,

Thank you for your hard work for Oxford East over the years, and thank you in particular for visiting our neighbourhood on Friday to discover what issues we care about. I was sadly unable to take up the opportunity to speak to you on that occasion, but am nevertheless writing in that spirit regarding a highly topical issue about which I care deeply.

Two convictions
I would like to start with two statements of conviction that I do not believe are particularly controversial, and with which most of your constituents, and the British people in general, would agree. They are as follows:

1. No-one should be discriminated against because of their sexual orientation. The provision of goods, services, facilities or education should not be restricted to anyone unless others are likely to suffer significantly as a result of doing otherwise. It is unacceptable that anyone should not, for example, be allowed to eat in a restaurant or get life insurance simply because of their sexual orientation.
   
2. No-one should be forced to promote behaviour, attitudes or beliefs to which they are personally opposed. Examples include (i) the belief in the existence or non-existence of God; (ii) the belief that the Labour Party are more competent to govern the country than the Conservative Party; or (iii) the belief that heterosexual sexual expression is more healthy than homosexual sexual expression. All these – whether they are true or not – are matters of personal conviction and should be subject to the conscience of the individual and not enforced by law.
   

Equality versus Liberty
I welcome the Labour Party’s commitment to social justice and the protection of the rights of minorities. In particular, I support the principled intentions behind the Equality Act and the Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs). I am, however, very concerned that the legislation as currently drafted, whilst seeking to enshrine the first principle in law, does not take sufficient account of the second principle, and may therefore have an unacceptable impact on freedom of conscience.

Furthermore, the process by which the legislation is proceeding through committees means that it is not subject to sufficient scrutiny to allow its weaknesses to be identified and corrected. I am aware, for example, that the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which met on Tuesday (13 March) gave the SORs the ‘all clear’ even though a number of committee members raised serious questions. Important legislation which will potentially have a profound impact on personal liberty surely deserves a full Parliamentary debate.

Undesirable consequence
Most of the content of the SORs, as currently drafted, do not cause me concern. There is however an unintended and very worrying consequence of the SORs in their current form: that some people with convictions (whether religious, scientific, ideological, or whatever) that the sexual practices of those of a particular sexual orientation should not be promoted will by law be forced to promote such practices. These practices could, as I understand it, be homophilia, heterophilia, sado-masochism, vampirism, coprophilia, or any other type of (legal) sexual practice. The type of people that could be affected by such legislation include printers, broadcasters, and the owners of rentable venues, and no doubt others besides.

It is inevitable that as the regulations currently stand, there will be individuals who will have to choose between their own conscience and the law. This is surely an unnecessary consequence of badly-drafted legislation.

The printer’s dilemma
To take the example of the printer, if a given printer has qualms about printing a certain type of literature, they should surely have the freedom to decline the work if it involved promoting behaviour or beliefs to which they were opposed. This should apply across the board. For example, they should not have to print pro-Trident posters if they are set against nuclear weapons, or print pro-animal-testing fliers if they are a strong supporter of animal rights. There will inevitably be printers who are happy to print such material, but those whose consciences speak against them should be allowed to opt out of the promotion of such practices and/or ideology.

A better way
The regulations should make provision for individuals legally to opt out of the promotion of practices and/or ideology to which they are personally opposed.

I think there is an important distinction to be made between being forced by law to allow consenting adults to engage in consensual sexual activities – of whatever ‘flavour’ – and being forced by law to promote certain sexual activities. Whilst legislating to ensure the former will inevitably be controversial, legislating to ensure the latter is surely unacceptable: yet this is what the SORs will end up doing!

Provision should be made in the SORs for an individual to conscientiously opt-out of the promotion of sexual activities to which that individual is opposed. In doing so the Government will be able to legislate to ensure that discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation – where it matters – is made illegal (promoting principle 1), whilst at the same time preserving the freedom of individuals to follow their consciences (safeguarding principle 2). By taking account of the subtleties of the matter and anticipating the unintended consequences outlined above, the Government will be able to achieve what they set out to do as regards discrimination whilst preserving freedom of conscience. As they currently stand, the SORs will make such discrimination illegal, but the price paid in terms of personal liberty will be unacceptably high.

My plea to you
In light of the above, I would urge you, as my MP, to be present and formally object to the SORs being laid on the floor of the House of Commons on Monday 19th March at the close of Parliamentary business, and, if the opportunity arises, to vote against the regulations.

I would be very happy to discuss this matter further with you.
With best wishes,
Yours sincerely,

Jonathan Mobey

Gay rights to trump manifestation of belief

It is justifiable in a democratic society to "limit the manifestations of religious belief... for the protection of the right of gay people not to be discriminated against" according to a report by the Parliamentary Joint Committee on Human Rights.

It is recommended by the Committee that this principle even be applied in law to a wide range of 'services' including adoption services and education. Even faith schools should not to be exempt: the religious 'ethos' currently allowed by law should effectively to be abolished by proposing that to teach Christianity and its principles as 'objectively true' should be made illegal!

There are worrying indication that Christians will no longer be free under British law to witness to the clear teaching of the Bible that God created sexual relationships to be enjoyed only within a monogamous heterosexual marriage.

Please pray about his complex and worrying issue: for the sake of Christian freedom to proclaim and preach the Gospel and for the sake of our confused and broken society. If you would like further information or consider how you might act on this development, please follow this link.

Women bishops - a focus of unity?

The credibility of Christian witness depends on the unity of Christians. Christian unity was a fundamental concern of both the Apostle Paul and to Jesus, e.g. John 17:23 "May they be brought to complete unity to let the world know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me."

Whilst fulfilling other important roles in the Church of England, the Bishop is significantly a focus of unity, and where this works well, even for Christians beyond the C of E. Christians are clearly split down the middle on the issue of women bishops, with many denominations set implacably against it. Since this is not a 'first order' issue of fundamental theological importance, whatever the arguments in favour (and I am quite happy to admit that there are good arguments), the detrimental impact on Christian unity and witness is to my mind a decisive argument against what would be a highly schismatic move.