Mitochondrial Donation

This week, Parliament held a free vote on the issue of mitochondrial donation. This has been called all sorts of things in the media, including - inaccurately - 'three-parent babies’. I wanted to let you know in more detail what happens when Parliament schedules a free vote and why, on this issue, I voted the way I did.

Parliament has been aware for some time of the potential for mitochondrial donation; it's a medical procedure where a third party donates a fraction of their mitochondrial DNA to replace the corresponding DNA in the biological mother to stop debilitating genetic conditions from being passed to the unborn baby from its mother. 

The NHS explains the different techniques involved in the potential treatment: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/02February/Pages/Draft-regulations-on-three-parent-IVF-published.aspx

 

Extraordinary scientific advances like this are cause for celebration for those who fear passing on genetic disorders to their children - such as the local man who got in touch with me before the vote to describe the awful pain of having lost a child recently to mitochondrial disease. For some people, though, they cause concern over the ethical questions that arise from intervening with an unborn child in this way.  

 

I heard from constituents who thoughtfully and passionately told me about their views. When Parliament holds a free vote, it means that MPs do not come under any influence to vote a certain way from their party leaders. These are generally ethical issues and therefore we vote based on our conscience, as well as what we believe represents the best interests of our constituents.

 

On these kind of issues, I rarely make up my mind quickly. They are often complex, morally difficult questions and I don’t take these decisions lightly. I carefully read the views of constituents on both sides of the argument. 

 

On this occasion, I voted to approve the regulations. 

 

Some constituents quoted a campaigning organisation to say: “I recognise the aim of eradicating mitochondrial disease is a good one, but it must be balanced against the ethical, public safety, and legal ramifications of introducing these techniques.”  Indeed it must, and I felt I was able to satisfy my judgement that those thresholds are met by these regulations. 

 

I am well aware that this amounts to a medical first.  As well as constituents I have been able to receive expert information from the Department of Health Chief Scientist;  Lord Robert Winston;  Professor Doug Turnbull, Director of the Wellcome Trust Centre for Mitochondrial Research and National Leader of the National Highly Specialised Services for Rare Mitochondrial Diseases of Children and Adults;  the Muscular Dystrophy Campaign and adults who have mitochondrial disease in their family.

 

I have seen no evidence to show that mitochondrial donation is unsafe.  The technique has moved successfully through the necessary ethical and public reviews over seven years, and to do any further testing, this vote was now necessary.  Further progress would be tested for safety at every stage by the Human Fertilisation and Embryo Authority.  What the regulations actually do is allow the HFEA to consider a license application for the carrying out of the treatment, which will be done by a committee using the latest scientific evidence to assessment the safety and efficacy of the proposed treatment.

 

This is not a process that the Government or medical professionals are rushing through; it is being rigorously tested at every step.

 

I do not think that this equates to eugenics, as some emails have suggested, because the type of DNA in the mitochondria is different to the type of DNA which governs human characteristics.  You could not select for human characteristics with this technique. Nor would I want to!

 

I do appreciate the religious argument which says that the technique creates human life which is only to be destroyed.  I do not think that this vote rested on that point, because over several previous decisions, Parliament has already debated and decided upon how donor material may be treated (in this treatment, as you may know, a donor egg or embryo is used).

 

The Minister was able to relay during the debate the views of the Rev Dr Brendan McCarthy, the Church of England's national adviser on medical ethics, that although he believes that further study can be done, the Church is not opposed in principle to mitochondrial replacement.  I am glad that the Church has participated in the debate at every stage and I respect the views of everyone whom it leads.

 

I know that I can’t satisfy every constituent with every vote, especially on such a complex and ethical area as this, but I hope you will be able to understand and respect the decision I have sought to come to for the benefit of my constituents who may need this medical treatment.