Fertilisation marks start of life, embryo case told
Life begins at fertilisation, a former chairman of the Medical Council’s ethics committee today told a landmark legal case on the status of frozen embryos.
The High Court has been asked to decide if frozen embryos constitute the “unborn” and as such have the right to life under the constitution.
The court ruled on Tuesday that a woman could not have embryos implanted in her womb against the will of her estranged husband.
The couple had a child through IVF treatment four years ago and shortly after they separated. Three surplus embryos were frozen and stored and the woman has argued they have a right to life under the constitution.
Dr James Clinch, a retired obstetrician and gynaecologist, was called by the plaintiff to give evidence at the beginning of the constitutional part of the case.
He was a member of the Medical Council for a decade from 1989 to 1999, and chairman of its ethics committee for the latter five years.
Dr Clinch said a doctor must always act in the interests of preserving life. “In the question of embryos is there doubt?” he asked. “Who knows when life starts – nobody knows.”
He continued that when there is doubt medical professionals should always err on the side of life. Because embryos have the genetic capability to become life, doctors would instinctively side with the embryo, he said.
“Once the sperm meets with the eggs and fuses in normal fashion, then that’s that,” he said.
Gerard Hogan SC, for the plaintiff, referred to Medical Council guidelines stating that a fertilised ovum must not be deliberately destroyed. Dr Clinch said he was assured that a fertilised ovum was an embryo.
He told the court there were several stages where life was thought to have begun but it was a question that had vexed people for centuries.
“If you had to choose, at present in 2006, it would have to be fertilisation. In the years to come we may well decide, biologically or scientifically, it’s some other time.
“But at present, it appears to be fertilisation if only by the negative thought process that without it first none of the other stages can occur,” he said.
John Rogers, SC, representing the defendant, suggested that IVF was a rapidly evolving area of medicine and opinions on it were always changing.
Dr Clinch agreed but insisted that the principles of ethics always remain the same and are applied to new circumstances.
Under further questioning Dr Clinch said he wasn’t sure what life was anymore. “If Mr (Samuel) Beckett was in the court room he would persuade us we didn’t exist at all,” he said.
Mr Rogers retorted that he would proceed with the case on the basis that everyone in the court did exist.
The case continues.
