The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) has wide powers to regulate the application of fertility technology, ranging through Viagra, IVF and "saviour siblings", children raised specifically to save a sibling. The latest code of conduct issued by the HFEA allows medical practitioners to evaluate candidates for fertility treatment in regard to the future welfare of the child.
They say the guidance issued last week extends the right of doctors and nurses to deny couples the chance to have children. Lawyers specialising in fertility law say the guidance previously applied to interventions such as IVF and insemination with donor sperm. But the code published last week states that doctors offering "any treatment such as surgery or the administration of drugs" at clinics licensed by the he Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA) must also take into account the welfare of a future child. MPs and doctors believe this could mean that men suffering from sexual dysfunction or women with problems such as blocked fallopian tubes would be denied treatment if the clinic thinks it will not be in a child's interests for them to reproduce. Women with thyroid or hormonal problems that could affect their fertility, or men wanting Viagra or to reverse a vasectomy, could also be denied treatment.
The denial of fertility treatment on the grounds that the future welfare of the child could be compromised is a subjective value-judgement. The code of conduct defines risk factors for the welfare of the child in terms of behaviour or convictions that could cause serious physical or psychological harm. If these factors are not defined, there is also a catch-all phrase to hand for the medical professionals (HFEA Code of Conduct 3.3.2 (d)).
any other aspects of the patient’s (or, where applicable, their partner’s) circumstances which treatment centres consider to be likely to cause serious harm to the child to be born or any existing child of the family.
The HFEA Code of Conduct was drafted to ensure that professionals had all means at their disposal to exclude parents who they judged were a risk to the child. This provides far wider powers to professionals for the refusal of fertility treatment, than social services would have for taking children into care. Doctors and nurses may even break professional confidences and share information if they judge that this is intrinsic to assessing the future potential of a family unit. (HFEA 3.4.7)
The powers over these decisions are stacked in favour of the professionals. Parents have the right to respond before a final decision is made, and if this is negative, could get further guidance and counselling from those who have just told them that they are not fit to be parents.
There is a need for fertility clinics to assess the fitness of parents as part of the professional judgements of doctors and nurses. Yet, the Code of Conduct widens these powers without providing sufficient right of review or redress for the aggrieved parent. We understand that such a wide remit can lead to abuse in the hands of the unscrupulous or the ideological motivated. Professionals, like politicians, require restraint, especially in such a sensitive area as the right to endow or deny potential parents.