BMA calls for continuted restrictions on use of IVF

The law still needs to restrict the use of in vitro fertilisation (IVF) in the United Kingdom despite it now being accepted as a standard medical procedure, the BMA has told MPs.

The association was giving evidence to the House of Commons science and technology committee, which is questioning whether existing laws governing human reproductive technologies should change.

Dr Vivienne Nathanson, the BMA's head of science and ethics, told MPs that public confidence in IVF depended on the practice being regulated.

“Getting public acceptance of IVF and other assisted reproductive technology is based at least in part on there being a sound legislative framework which imposes restrictions on scientific freedom. This is one factor in getting public support, which is still not universal,” she said.

“Removing that framework could have a negative impact on public perceptions of the limits they want to see imposed being enforced,” she added.

One area debated by the committee is the current requirement for clinics to take account of the welfare of the unborn child before agreeing to provide treatment to individual couples.

Dr Nathanson said the BMA backed the principle of an assessment but was concerned that couples should not be judged “against an idealised concept of the perfect family.”

An assessment was important because with IVF the couple is asking a third party—a health professional—to become involved and help them to have a child. This involvement conferred on the doctor specific responsibilities towards the unborn child.

But the BMA did not support the current act's requirement for doctors to take account of the “need of … [the] child for a father”—included after a failed attempt in parliament to restrict IVF to married couples. It has been used by some clinics to refuse treatment to individuals, including lesbian women.

Dr Nathanson said: “We don't want to say that any factor should be used as an absolute but that everyone should be judged on their merits.

“The general tenor of such assessment should be that exclusions should be truly exceptional,” she said.

When pushed by MPs to define what circumstances might be “exceptional,” Dr Nathanson said that people with recent convictions for child abuse should certainly cause concern and might be excluded.

“The key point is—no absolutist rules, no concept other than serious harm to the potential child, and inclusiveness not exclusiveness in acceptance,” she said.

The BMA is backing amendments to the current law, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 but has said that no major changes are necessary.

In written evidence to the committee the association said it considered that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority provided a good model for regulation in the area of medical practice.