I must say that I have some anxiety about existing practice sanctioning a potential injury to a child from which they will not derive any direct benefit, but in this instance I rely on the argument that was made in the preceding speech: the child will have been engineered specifically for that purpose rather than being created naturally. I do not regard the circumstances as being precisely comparable, but I take the point that there is a part answer to the ethical issue that I have raised.
Lastly, the potential psychological impact on the child has been discussed. I think that all our remarks on this point are speculative. As has been made clear from the start, the sample involved is likely to be tiny and is tiny now. There is no basis on which anyone can do anything other than guess what the impact on a child might be. The positive constructions that have been suggested are perfectly possible, and a child might well feel greatly loved and that it had contributed greatly in love to its sibling. However, it is also possible that much more negative feelings might arise. I personally feel that I cannot second-guess that in law, but that is what we are implicitly doing in the Bill, as it is currently worded.
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
Proceeding contribution from
Mark Todd
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Monday, 19 May 2008.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords].
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
476 c100 
Session
2007-08
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:41:07 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_474249
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_474249
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_474249