Government ignores public on need for a father
|
Of the 505 published responses to the Department of Health’s consultation regarding the current requirement that those involved in the IVF process must have regard for the need of any resulting children for a father, only 103 backed removing the provision.
|
 |
These findings are the result of research by CARE which has examined the published submissions to the 2005 Review of the Human Fertility and Embryology Act which consulted on the fathers provision.
Dan Boucher, director of parliamentary affairs said, ‘These findings are the source of real concern given that government has clearly ignored the balance of consultation responses and gone out on a limb, developing a Draft Bill (the Draft Human Tissues and Embryos Bill) which, if implemented, will remove the father’s provision.’
Parliamentarians have also expressed disquiet. Claire Curtis Thomas MP stated, ‘It is a matter of great concern that the government has not listened properly to the people of the UK. Whilst there is no question that consultations are plebiscites, there is also no question that if government ignores consultation responses in this cavalier manner, people will have good reason not to bother with consultations and our politics will become very much the poorer. The overwhelming evidence demonstrating the importance of fathers affirms the wisdom of the balance of consultation responses.’
Philippa Taylor, CARE Family and Bioethics consultant concurred, ‘Academic research clearly demonstrates the importance of fathers for their children, especially boys. Indeed, as a society we have been increasingly confronted by the problems of fatherlessness resulting from death or family breakdown. The proposal, therefore, to deliberately create children who will be denied their father throughout childhood demonstrates a failure of judgement on the part of the government in relation to the best interests of the child. If there is any question about the effective working of the current arrangements then we must improve the delivery mechanisms associated with the fathers clause, not remove it.’
Notes
1. The relevant part of the 1990 Act is (HFE Act 13(5)). It states that one may not proceed ‘unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born ... (including the need of that child for a father)...’ (HFE Act 13(5)).
3. The precise breakdown of responses to the 2005 consultation can be seen in the table below.
4. The Draft Human Tissues and Embryos Bill, which if implemented will abolish the fathers provision, is currently being considered by a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament which will report to Parliament on July 25th. The committee has been taking oral evidence throughout June and is expected tomorrow (Wednesday) to have a particular focus on the father’s question given that it is taking evidence from Prof Brenda Almond and Prof Susan Golombok whose specialism is the fathers question. For more information see: http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/jchumantissue.cfm
5. CARE is a registered Christian charity which seeks to combine practical caring initiatives with public policy on social and ethical issues. CARE campaigns, provides resources, undertakes caring work and brings Christian insight and experience to matters of family, education, media, citizenship and bioethics. For further information please visit www.care.org.uk
|
|
Responses
|
|
Make no changes
to the requirement.
|
Replace with “the need…
for a father
and
a mother.”
|
Remove the requirement of
“ the need… for a father”.*
|
No specific response given
to question. #
|
Total number of respondents
|
|
Number of respondents
|
21
|
208
|
103
|
173
|
505
|
*
| |
*Includes responses where a removal was implied but not specifically stated. |
|
| |
# #Includes responses where no consensus was reached or an answer proved con contradictory.
|
|
|
