The number of surplus frozen human embryos in storage in the United Kingdom (UK) is at its highest level since records began in 1991 and the formation of the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority (HFEA). This study features a quantitative analysis of data from 1991 to 2019 provided by the HFEA as well as a commentary on observed trends within this data. We also discuss trends relating to the final destiny of surplus embryos. Data analysis show that at least 130,000 stored embryos have been discarded in the UK since 1991, while another 500,000 embryos are currently being stored in a frozen state, of which a significant proportion is likely to be discarded in the future. However, this creates a moral dilemma since UK legislation relating to human embryos is based on the 1984 Warnock Report which recognizes that they have a special moral status.

Human germline genome editing is increasingly being seen as acceptable provided certain conditions are satisfied. Accordingly, genetic modifications would take place on eggs or sperm (or their precursor cells) as well as very early embryos for the purpose of bringing children into existence with or without particular genetic traits. In this context, a number of already discussed and separate arguments, such as the (1) synecdoche, (2) non-identity (3) inherent equality and (4) expressivist arguments, can be brought together in the new context of examining, from an ethical perspective, some of the possible consequences of such germline genome editing. In so doing, it becomes clear that these novel procedures are incompatible with the concept of equality in value and in worth of all human beings in a genuinely inclusive society. Such equality is expressed in Article 1 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights which states that: ‘All human beings are born … equal in dignity and rights.’

As public interest advocates, policy experts, bioethicists, and scientists, we call for a course correction in public discussions about heritable human genome editing. Clarifying misrepresentations, centering societal consequences and concerns, and fostering public empowerment will support robust, global public engagement and meaningful deliberation about altering the genes of future generations.

The advantages and risks of a number of new genome modifying procedures seeking to create healthy or enhanced individuals, such as Maternal Spindle Transfer, Pronuclear Transfer, Cytoplasmic Transfer and Genome Editing, are currently being assessed from an ethical perspective, by national and international policy organizations. One important aspect being examined concerns the effects of these procedures on different kinds of identity. In other words, whether or not a procedure only modifies the qualities or properties of an existing human being, meaning that merely the qualitative identity of this single individual is affected, or whether a procedure results in the creation of a new individual, meaning that a numerically distinct human being would have come into existence. In this article, the different identity arguments proposed, so far, are presented with respect to these novel reproductive procedures. An alternative view is then developed using the Origin Essentialism argument to indicate that any change in the creative conditions of an individual such as in his or her biology but also the moment in time, and the three dimensions of space, will have a numerical identity effect and bring into existence a new individual who would not, otherwise, have existed. Because of this, it is concluded that a form of selection may have taken place in which a preference was expressed for one new possible individual instead of another, based on some frame of reference. This may then mean that a selection between persons has occured contravening the European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights which was ratified in 2000.

The question whether maternal spindle transfer (MST) and pronuclear transfer (PNT) can be prohibited under EU legislation was examined by the non-governmental organisation European Bioethics Research (EBR). It did so by submitting an official complaint to the EU Commission proposing that the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015 breached the prohibition on the modification of a person's germ line genetic identity of the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and the new Regulation EU 536/2014. A discussion then took place, during 2016, between EBR and the EU Commission whether MST and PNT principally involved a 'medicinal product' in which case the EU Clinical Trials Directive 2001/20/EC and Regulation EU 536/2014 would be applicable or whether the procedures just involved a medical procedure in which case the Tissue and Cells Directive 2004/23/EC was applicable which did not include any prohibition on the intentional modification of a person's germline.

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

In the discussions leading up to the enactment of the UK Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Mitochondrial Donation) Regulations 2015, it was repeatedly emphasised, by many commentators, that maternal spindle transfer (MST) and pronuclear transfer (PNT) did not give rise to children who could be considered as having three or more parents. This was because it was argued that only the genetic material found in the chromosomes should be considered as the determining factor for the formation of parent-child relationships and the resulting kinship identities. In this present study, however, this assertion will be questioned in the light of different kinds and different understandings of kinship identities. It will also be suggested that any person who is partly responsible for the very existence of a child, through any means, may qualify as a causal parent - a parent whom the resulting child may want to identify. As a result, a positive response should be given to a request from a person born from MST and PNT concerning identifying information for all the individuals responsible for bringing him or her into existence. In the light of this, the article will conclude that it is regrettable that the UK government enacted binding legislation making sure that children, born through MST and PNT, will never be able to contact the egg donors and, in the case of PNT, the sperm donors. This reflects a very limited understanding of who parents really are and may give rise to serious long-term psychological distress in the prospective children.

A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.

With the development of new procedures in the production of synthetic human gametes it has become important to re-examine the manner in which reproductive cells, taking part in the generation of children, can be understood. Though this can be attempted from many different perspectives, the present study will examine the possibility of considering gametes as representing the persons from whom they originated. From this perspective, it is possible to suggest that, in procreation, the entirety of each human sperm cell may represent and reveal the man from whom it was produced and the entirety of each human egg cell may represent and reveal the woman from whom it was produced. The possible ethical consequences of using synthetic gametes for those who hold this perspective together with their understanding of relational identity will also be examined.

The play entitled LABOURatory takes place in a dystopian future, in the UK, where pregnancies are considered disgraceful to the wealthy ruling classes. As a result, baby farming has become an accepted and thriving industry. Written, directed, and performed by the Hit the Mark theatre company (which is a group of eight recently graduated young actors from Trinity Saint David at the University of Wales, UK), the play was performed from the 18–21 August 2014 at the Edinburgh International Festival Fringe in Scotland. The story focuses on a young woman from the poor, exploited half of a brutally divided society governed by the Tea Party. She is selected to work in a surrogacy clinic called the ‘Bacon Farm’ in which the ‘Best of British Babies’ are gestated. Indeed, she has the great honour of being nominated as a surrogate mother for a seemingly happy couple of the highest status. This couple is considering the use of a surrogate because, as members of the privileged upper-half, they are expected to have a child. Of course, having a child has the utilitarian advantage of also bringing a couple closer together while being entertaining and amusing in the same way as a pet animal. The young surrogate’s life is shattered, however, when her illegal relationship with a young man from the privileged class is discovered. In such an idealized society there is little room for opinions or emotions. In this context, the play explores the values of a world of enforced routine where depersonalized surrogate mothers are considered as ‘live-stock’ and biological ‘puppets’ who do not have a name but just a number. The thrust and force of the performance was that it represented a parody of what is already taking place in some countries, such as India, where women are being used as surrogates in a manner not too dissimilar to the play. Actually, the story became sadly very topical in that, even during the time when the play was being performed at the Edinburgh Fringe Festival, a surrogacy scandal was raging in Thailand. In the end, it was impossible to avoid the overall message that the manner in which some surrogates are being used can only be compared to a social experiment. As such nobody knows what the consequences will be. And the clock is ticking!

It has been suggested that human organs should be bought and sold on a regulated market as any other material property belongingto an individual. This would have the advantage of both addressing the grave shortage of organs available for transplantation and respecting the freedom of individuals to choose to do whatever they want with their body parts. The old arguments against such a market in human organs are, therefore, being brought back into question. The article examines the different arguments both in favour and against the sale of human organs. It concludes that the body and any of its elements is a full expression of the whole person. As such, they cannot have a price if the individual is to retain his or her full inherent dignity and if society is to retain and protect this very important concept.

Following the debate in the UK House of Lords, in December 2012, uncertainty remains as to the manner in which human and non-human interspecies embryos are differentiated in law.

Population genomics research drawing on genetic databases has been expanding rapidly, with some of this information being combined into “biobanks,” which are collections of genetic information. Managing this information in an appropriate manner is a highly complex ethical undertaking in the health policy arena. This book, thus, combines theoretical and empirical research to examine the areas of conflict and consensus in the regulatory and ethical frameworks that have been developed to govern biobanks. Ethicists from the Department of Ethics, Trade, Human Rights and Health Law (ETH) of the World Health Organization, the Institute of Biomedical Ethics of Geneva University and the Institute of Biomedical Ethics of the University of Zurich, with the support of the Geneva International Academic Network (GIAN), examined the conditions under which genetic databases should be established, stored, and used in an ethically acceptable way. In addition to a comprehensive review of the scientific literature and a comparative analysis of existing normative frameworks, they present the results of in-depth interviews with experts around the world concerning the most problematic and controversial issues. The results of that study, combined with their normative analysis, leads to recommendations for a better international framework. The book will be a valuable resource for researchers and practitioners working in the development, maintenance and regulation of biobanks, and for ethicists and regulators developing guidance for ethical management of this important new scientific resource.

The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008, which comes into force this October, has given a headache to biobanks in the UK. For the Act allows, on certain conditions, human tissue to be used for somatic-cell nuclear transfers (hSCNT) with both human and non-human ova even though the tissue donor has not specifically consented to this procedure. 1 Office of Public Sector InformationHuman Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008. http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080022_en_1 Google Scholar Thus each biobank in the UK now has to decide how to respond to questions from donors and the general public about whether they can use their stored tissue in this way.