Clause 24
Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill [Lords]
10:45 am
Evan Harris (Shadow Minister, Innovation, Universities and Skills; Oxford West and Abingdon, Liberal Democrat)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to respond to the Minister. I was listening carefully to what she said. In my opening remarks, I did not answer my own question or put the Government’s case. I raised two points that I thought that the Minister might use in her response and raised further points on them to save time. I thought that that would be easier than seeking to intervene on the Minister, which might not be her preference, during her response.
In respect of her second point about the need to have this information for follow-up, even for unsuccessful treatment cycles, that follow-up is done by the doctor and the clinic. That is the same with any medical treatment. There are often follow-up treatments in medicine. It is not usual to be required to record all the details, including identifying information, on the central database in order for there to be an appropriate follow-up. Because of the stringent confidentiality requirements, which we are about to discuss, it might be difficult for one doctor to pass on to another doctor information about previous treatments. I am not sure whether the matter will be helped by this form of national database. I do not believe that future doctors would use the resource to check what existing treatments someone has had; they would normally ask the patient. I do not understand why the issue of follow-up is a good reason to hold this information about unsuccessful treatment cycles.
The Minister also argued in respect of long-term research. I said that I did not see how that was different from any other form of medical treatment in which there is a research interest. I said that research can be done through the usual consent arrangements prospectively or even retrospectively, again with the appropriate consents and ethical approval. My understanding is that there has not been any useful research based on all the information on the database by the HFEA. I know that amendments have been tabled to make such research easier in the future, but it did not seem to be a good argument. That was why I raised my points in advance. It was not to answer my own question, but to help move forward the debate by asking whether they could be addressed. The Minister may feel that she has done that, but I do not feel that there has been sufficient justification. However, I understand her point about not knowing whether there is going to be a pregnancy and therefore needing to collect the information in advance. If people from abroad, or in this country, do not opt to go back for a post-natal follow-up, that data set is incomplete. In the end, we rely on patients coming back for follow-up.